Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (GIFT OF MACE)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a Mace he presented on behalf of your House to the Federal Assembly of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and assuring Me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
It gave Me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Low-flying Aircraft, Hammersmith

Mr. Tomney: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the source and identity of the Royal Air Force aircraft flying low over Hammersmith on the evening of 21st June.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The aircraft was a Lincoln of Bomber Command taking part in a rehearsal for the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association Searchlight Tattoo at the White City.

Mr. Tomney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this aircraft was flying at a height of 300 feet without navigation lights, and caused quite a lot of consternation to people in the neighbourhood, especially patients in hospitals? Will

the hon. Gentleman undertake that in future aircraft of this size and character fly at the regulation height and display navigation lights?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I am very sorry that the public was disturbed in this way on this occasion. Last year a Lincoln bomber did the same thing without public protest. This year, unfortunately, the aircraft was forced down by low cloud below the height at which it would not have caused any complaint.

Mr. Beswick: How was this machine traced, when normally anyone who makes a complaint is told that he must quote its number?

Mr. Ward: This aircraft was taking part in a searchlight tattoo, and there was only one aircraft there.

Aircrew Reservists (Training)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will now make a further statement in regard to the future of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve aircrew reserve.

Mr. Ward: We are now training aircrew reservists on the basis which I announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Sir R. Perkins) on 20th January and during the Air Estimates debate on 4th March.

Mr. Macpherson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling among R.A.F.V.R. aircrew reservists that their services could well be used for aircraft of a character other than jet aircraft? Has this been considered, and is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that there is no use to which these highly skilled and experienced pilots can be put?

Mr. Ward: I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to look at my previous statements on this matter. We have discussed it in this House on many occasions. To put the point briefly, we must concentrate our available resources on training men who will be of use to us in the very early days of a war.

Air Ministry Dilutee Employees (Improvements)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement in regard to


the further discussions which have taken place concerning the distinction between industrial engineering staff employed by his Department and dilutees in regard to eligibility for merit pay.

Mr. Ward: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 2nd June, 1954, to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell).

Mr. Macpherson: Would my hon. Friend say whether there is any substance in the reports that further negotiations have taken place and that a further agreement has been made in which a new kind of merit pay has been introduced, over and above the merit pay of £1?

Mr. Ward: The only agreement that has been made about merit pay is that dilutees with more than five years' service will be able to qualify for the rates of merit pay that may be earned by fully skilled workers.

Trade Union Representation

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why he has altered Air Ministry Regulations in Air Publication 826, paragraph 45A, so as to make it no longer obligatory for commanding officers of units to meet officials representing trade unions other than those which are represented directly or indirectly on Air Ministry Whitley Councils.

Mr. Ward: No amendment has been made to this paragraph.

Mr. Macpherson: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that none will be made, in view of the necessity to defend minorities?

Mr. Ward: It is not intended to make any Amendment to this paragraph.

Detention Barracks (Officers' Duties)

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the duties of the commandants, medical officers and chaplains of detention camps; how often a prisoner is medically examined; how often a commandant is required to see the prisoners; and how it came about that the results

of maltreatment constantly applied at the Wahnerheide Royal Air Force detention camp were never observed by these officers.

Mr. Ward: The duties of these officers are laid down in the Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons, which have been applied to Air Force establishments. Each prisoner is medically examined on arrival. Afterwards any man can report sick when the medical officer makes his daily visit. The commandant sees each prisoner as soon as possible after arrival, and he visits the whole of the establishment at least once in every 24 hours. The only visible sign of injury at Wahnerheide was explained away by the man himself.

Mr. Hale: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that while everyone appreciates the very prompt action he took in the matter, the information which he has given seems to disclose widespread cruelty which must have produced results, and, one would have thought, must have been known to the officers in the camp if they were doing their duty? Will the hon. Gentleman further understand that when we were "old sweats" we all held the view that there was a mysterious dispensation which protected everybody above the rank of sergeant from the slings and arrows of misfortune?

Mr. Ward: We have been into the matter very carefully. During the court-martial proceedings, the prisoners had every opportunity to give evidence against anybody they wished, and there is no evidence whatever that the officers were in any way involved in ill-treatment.

Mr. Hale: I did not suggest they were. No one suggested that the officers were concerned with the cruelty, but they had observed it.

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what are the limitations of the right of punishment at Royal Air Force detention units; by whom punishments can be ordered; what registers are kept; and what steps are taken to prevent prisoners being submitted to excessive or harmful drill.

Mr. Ward: Punishments for an offence against the rules of the establishment can be imposed by the commandant or another officer to whom the commandant has delegated power. More serious


offences are dealt with by a board of visitors. Details of all charges preferred and the punishments awarded are entered in a register. A senior non-commissioned officer is always present when prisoners are being drilled.

Mr. Hale: Does the Under-Secretary not think that, in view of the public anxiety which has long existed about conditions in the detention camps, whether justified or not, the appointment of an independent inspectorate corresponding to that of Her Majesty's prisons would be very useful and would improve the Services?

Mr. Ward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have recently had a court of inquiry, which went very carefully into the administration of the unit, and it recommended certain changes which we have now adopted. I do not think we should have any more difficulty.

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how far it is the custom at Royal Air Force detention units to ask a released prisoner to sign a note to the effect that he has no complaints to make of his treatment whilst in camp; how many were asked to sign at Wahnerheide during the 12 months to the most recent convenient date; how many refused; and what is the normal consequence of a refusal.

Mr. Ward: This practice is not customary at Royal Air Force detention units, and it has now been discontinued at Wahnerheide. All the 180 airmen released from Wahnerheide during the 12 months ending 31st May, 1954, signed the form in question. No disciplinary action would have been taken if any of them had refused to sign.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he comes out of this matter with very considerable credit?

Officer Candidates (Education)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why special preference is given by officers' selection boards to former pupils of schools included within the Headmasters' Conference.

Mr. Ward: No such preference is given.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had evidence from a clerk

to one of these boards who records the results of interviews and is instructed by the board to check the school of every candidate against a list of Headmasters' Conference schools and to mark "H.C.S." against every candidate who went to such a school so that he can automatically get a second interview, however badly he failed the first? Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this matter and see why this discrimination is operating?

Mr. Ward: If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me details of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to investigate anything, but such limited study as I have been able to make in the time available has shown that more than half of the officers selected in recent years have not attended Headmasters' Conference schools.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even though rather less than half attended Headmasters' Conference schools, that is a much higher proportion of candidates coming from those schools than in the case of the other schools? If the figure is anything like half, it would suggest, all things being equal, that preference is given to those who attended Headmasters' Conference schools.

Mr. Ward: Why should all other things be equal? If they are selected on their merits, as they are, why should it not happen that those coming from Headmasters' Conference schools have, on balance, rather more merit?

Mr. Callaghan: Irrespective of any details which my hon. Friend may send to the Under-Secretary, will he look into the point that the fact that people come from a particular school is drawn to the attention of the selection board, and will the hon. Gentleman ascertain why this should be, and discontinue it, so that everyone can be sure of getting a fair chance?

Mr. Ward: I will certainly look into that. But I should have thought that if anyone is interviewing a candidate for a commission, one of the things he wants to know is the sort of education the candidate has had.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the procedure followed at these boards is in any way different today from the procedure followed in 1950 and 1951?

Mr. Ward: I do not think it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Unclassified and Class III Roads

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that highway authorities are experiencing difficulty in repairing and maintaining unclassified roads; and if he will give consideration to making a grant of £100 per mile towards this category of road.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My right hon. Friend is debarred by the Local Government Act of 1929 from making grants towards the cost of maintaining unclassified roads in counties.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of these roads in the rural areas continues to be deplorable, and does he not consider that it is time he and his right hon. Friend did some constructive thinking about these roads? Does he not consider that the most equitable way of dealing with the matter is on a cost per mile basis?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. The responsibility for maintaining unclassified roads rests on the local highway authority. Under the Equalisation Grant, in the case of Anglesey, for example, 47·6 per cent. of the money which is spent on these unclassified roads is derived from the Exchequer.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has the Minister given consideration to the Report of the Council for Wales which states that the grant made for these purposes is completely inadequate? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the light of that Report?

Mr. Molson: No grants are made by my Ministry for the maintenance of unclassified roads. As I said in answer to the main Question, we are debarred from doing so by the Act of 1929.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Government spokesman promised that legislation would be introduced in order to make it possible for the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and for the Ministry of Agriculture to do this? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why no progress has been made?

Mr. Molson: I am not aware of any promise to that effect having been made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the special grants which were proposed in the case of Wales under the White Paper dealing with the matter, but that is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture and it does not affect my Department.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that we were promised by the Minister for Welsh Affairs that, in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture, he would go into this matter to see what grants could be made? This Question is directed specifically to that matter. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened?

Mr. Molson: We are considering with the Ministry of Agriculture what steps should be taken to give effect to the proposals made in favour of the Principality of Wales, although it is not at all likely that Anglesey will qualify for any grant under this scheme.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will revise the method of grants for Class III roads so that the grants are made on a mileage basis of £150 per mile.

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. A mileage basis would take no account of special factors such as the nature of the country, the width of the road, the amount of traffic, and the nature of the work to be undertaken.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the condition of the Class III roads is little better than that of unclassified roads? Does he not consider that the cost per mile grant would treat the whole country more equitably than the present 40 per cent. grant?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. For the reasons which I have given, I do not think it would have that effect. At present we are making a grant of 50 per cent. towards approved maintenance projects started by local authorities.

Mr. Watkins: Would the Minister be good enough to look into the position of unclassified roads and see if a larger number of unclassified roads could go into the Class III category and then carry the grants?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. The roads are classified according to their value for through traffic. Roads which are of local value are the responsibility of the local highway authority.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are all these considerations which would have been applied normally not now being reconsidered, in view of the promise given that the Report of the Council for Wales would be considered by the Government? Am I to understand that the Ministry of Transport has not been concerned in any of these consultations?

Mr. Molson: The particular proposals in favour of certain rural areas in Wales are now under consideration by the Ministry of Agriculture, and we have been consulted upon them. These questions are addressed to the general law relating to grants for classified and unclassified roads. There is no proposal to make any change in the general law on that subject.

Muckley Corner, Staffordshire (Roundabout)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is yet able to give a decision about the construction of a roundabout at Muckley Corner, Staffordshire; and whether he is now able to give a firm reply to the possibilities proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary of his Department in his letter, dated 3rd January, to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth.

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. Detailed plans and estimates cannot be made until various questions relating to the removal of the garage at this crossroads have been resolved, and this is likely to take some further time.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is absolutely and entirely unsatisfactory? This matter has been raised by me in the House no fewer than three times in the last year; he has received notice direct from the local authority; it has received full support from the local road safety committee. Is not something to be done about this wretched roundabout? The cost will not be great, and the landlords in the vicinity have given full support to the proposal.

Mr. Molson: My information is not entirely in accordance with that of the hon. Member. The local planning authority is not prepared to agree to the re-erection on a new site of a garage which is constructed of temporary materials. Until a decision has been given by the local planning authority on the minimum standards of buildings which it is prepared to authorise, it is not possible to prepare a firm estimate of the scheme and to decide its place in the programme.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman will hear more about this.

Traffic Congestion, Smithfield

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he has taken to relieve the traffic congestion at Smithfield market; and whether he is now satisfied that meat is being moved in and out with sufficient expedition.

Mr. Molson: Some difficulties were encountered on Monday, 5th July, but traffic moved normally later in the week. We are satisfied that the measures taken by the Commissioner of Police for the City of London—particularly the ban on private cars entering the market precincts—have been successful in restoring the free movement of traffic.

Sir R. Boothby: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him for an assurance that he will not use helicopters at Smithfield?

Barton Bridge, Eccles

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will name those schemes to which his Department has allotted a higher priority than to the construction of a new high level bridge at Barton, Eccles; and what authorities outside his Department he consulted in determining these priorities.

Mr. Molson: The large schemes mentioned in my right hon. Friend's statement of 8th December have been allotted higher priority than the Barton Bridge scheme. The decision as to priorities is necessarily my right hon. Friend's own, although he tries to give due weight to any views which highway authorities and other responsible bodies and persons may express as to the importance of individual schemes.

Mr. Proctor: Can we take it then that the statement that the hon. Gentleman made on Wednesday last in answer to a supplementary question of mine is not correct, and that there are not large numbers of schemes left that will have priority over Barton Bridge?

Mr. Molson: That is not a logical deduction to draw from the answer have given.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will appoint a committee to consider what priority should be given to the erection of a new high level bridge at Barton.

Mr. Molson: No, Sir.

Clyde Tunnel

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what modifications he proposes to ask the corporation of Glasgow to make in their original plans for the Whiteinch Tunnel in view of the increase in the estimate.

Mr. Molson: I have nothing to say on this matter until my right hon. Friend has discussed the question with representatives of the corporation.

Mr. Rankin: But surely the hon. Gentleman will have something to say now? Does he intend to ask Glasgow Corporation to modify the proposals which his right hon. Friend endorsed in December of last year?

Mr. Molson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer. I have nothing to say on this matter.

Mr. Rankin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my supplementary.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date he is meeting the representatives of Glasgow Corporation to discuss modifying the Whiteinch Tunnel project.

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend is meeting the deputation on Tuesday, 27th July.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so communicative and ask him whether he is aware that he has now indicated that he is meeting the deputation on 27th July in order to discuss modifying the proposals for the Whiteinch Tunnel?

Mr. Mason: It is in order to discuss generally the Whiteinch Tunnel.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. The question is that the hon. Gentleman is meeting the corporation to discuss the modification of the proposed tunnel. That is the question.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that.

Pedestrian Crossings, Liverpool (Flashing Lights)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that many of the zebra crossings in the city of Liverpool have not been equipped with flashing-light beacons; and what steps he proposes to take to cause the authority in Liverpool to provide the protection to which pedestrians are entitled by equipping the beacons at the zebra crossings with flashing lights.

Mr. Molson: I understand that beacon equipment has now been installed at most of the crossings in Liverpool and the contract for the electricity supply has been placed. The work should be completed and the beacons operating very shortly.

Mr. Keenan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this failure of the corporation even to anticipate the changes to be made has caused a great deal of concern? Does he realise that opinion in Liverpool and in many other places is that the new regulations, coupled with the disappearance of some crossings, make it appear that the Ministry of Transport is more concerned about getting speed on the roads and is entirely neglecting the duty to preserve the life of the pedestrian?

Mr. Molson: It is not for me to comment on the administration of the Liverpool Corporation. In answer to the second part of the question, I would say that my right hon. Friend has a dual responsibility which is to try to minimise road accidents and also to try to keep road traffic moving.

Mr. Logan: Is the Minister aware that on the way to the North there is great congestion of traffic on Scotland Road and that even the lighting of zebra crossings will not get rid of the difficulties and dangers? Is there any possibility of an underground tunnel to allow old people and others a measure of safety?

Mr. Molson: This matter has been considered and some research into it has been carried out by the Road Research Laboratory. Unfortunately, it has been found that pedestrians are extremely unwilling to use underground tunnels when they are provided.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I live on the spot and I see congestion at this bottleneck every day of the week—except when I am here. [Interruption.] I had to put in that proviso. The fact is that the little archway from Cazneau Street to the Rotunda Theatre is the main way to the North of England and it is continuously congested. There is no other solution but the provision of an underground passage. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. Molson: I am certainly prepared to look into the matter.

Improvement Schemes, Glamorganshire

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many schemes of road improvement were submitted to him by the Glamorgan County Council for 1954–55; and how many he has sanctioned.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of schemes of road improvement, and the estimated cost thereof submitted to him by the Glamorgan County Council; and the number of schemes and the estimated cost thereof which have been sanctioned in the current financial year.

Mr. Molson: The Glamorgan County Council submitted 77 schemes, estimated to cost £1,063,000, of which my right hon. Friend has approved three estimated to cost £9,000. Two further schemes costing some £4,200 (of which £2,850 is to be paid by way of grant) put forward direct by claiming authorities for Glamorganshire, have also been accepted for grant. I would also remind the hon. Member of the Neath by-pass and the Port Talbot by-pass included in the first three years of the present road programme and estimated to cost together nearly £4 million.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that there is a special case for Glamorgan because of the poverty of the 1930s which has left behind a black-log of road schemes which is probably

unequalled in any other part of the country? Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the Glamorgan County Council, which has communicated with all Welsh Members on this matter?

Mr. Molson: It is extraordinary how many counties are able to produce special claims for special consideration. It is largely because of the special circumstances that Glamorgan obtained such a large share of the expenditure on trunk roads.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this was a development area and that some hundreds of factories have been built which employ 100,000 people and that the whole place is highly congested? Will he look at the matter again so that this development area can be free from the stanglehold of an inadequate transport system?

Mr. Molson: All that the right hon. Gentleman has said shows how fully aware are the Government of the need for help for Glamorgan. I am only too willing to look into this matter once more, without, of course, giving any undertaking.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to receive a deputation of Glamorgan Members to discuss the matter?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly pass that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of schemes which have been approved by him is very many more than the number which was approved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he occupied a similar office?

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that there is probably less road work going on in Glamorgan and in South Wales generally today than at almost any time since 1946? Is it not about time that the much-vaunted road improvement programme was put into effect?

Mr. Molson: We have committed ourselves to more work today than there has been at any time since before the war.

Mr. P. Morris: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why approval has been given for only three


out of 66 minor road schemes in the county of Glamorgan; if he is aware of the urgency of the 11 major schemes, details of which have already been sent him; and if he will give further consideration to the council's request for larger sanctions with a view to overtaking arrears.

Mr. Molson: The allocation that my right hon. Friend is able to make to small road schemes in Glamorgan has to have relation to the funds at his disposal and the many competing claims on them. I know of the urgency of the 11 larger schemes and will bear them in mind, but I regret that we are unable to allocate further funds to Glamorgan at present.

Mr. Morris: While I accept that basis. will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend that, in view of the highly-industrialised nature of the county of Glamorgan and the serious arrears there, something must be done immediately if we are to maintain a mobile transport system in that part of the country?

Scientific and Industrial Research

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to bring to the knowledge of highway authorities the results of the researches of the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scentific and Industrial Research.

Mr. Molson: The Road Research Laboratory itself, with the encouragement of my Department, takes steps to bring the results of its researches to the knowledge of highway authorities. Our engineers are also in constant touch with the engineers of highway authorities and make it their business to pass on such information to them. An exhibition was held at my suggestion at the Materials and Construction Division of the Road Research Laboratory at Harmondsworth on the 5th, 6th and 7th May at which many chairmen of Highway Authorities and surveyors were able to see demonstrations of new methods.

Mr. Willey: While I am encouraged by that reply, may I ask the hon. Member whether he appreciates that this research is very valuable and that a small expenditure on it can lead to great economies in road construction? Will

he endeavour to pursue the recommendation of the Select Committee and see that this research is encouraged as far as possible?

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. Certainly.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the services which the Road Research Laboratory can give to highway authorities are being limited by the cut in the real value of the grant to the D.S.I.R. which has been imposed since this Government came into office? What is he doing about that?

Mr. Molson: The grant available to the D.S.I.R. is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Great Cambridge Road, Enfield (Dual Carriageway)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is anticipated that work will start on the construction of a dual carriageway on the Great Cambridge Road through Edmonton and Enfield.

Mr. Molson: I expect that work will start before the end of this year on the provision of dual carriageways on a section of the Great Cambridge Road through Edmonton. It is hoped to deal subsequently with the Enfield section.

Mr. Davies: What does the Minister mean by "subsequently"? Why cannot the work on a whole stretch be commenced at the same time? Why must it be done in two stages, in view of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of fatalities along this road only recently?

Mr. Molson: There is not enough money available to undertake the whole of the work at the same time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to train a sufficient number of helicopter pilots to ensure that they are readily available when required.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Sufficient pilots are available to meet the needs of


the impending experimental services, and it will be for the operators to take the necessary steps to obtain helicopter pilots for other services as they need them.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister state what support is being given by the Government to the enterprising new scheme at Derby for training helicopter pilots? If he cannot yet make a statement upon something which is being considered, will he at least wish this important training scheme every success?

Mr. Profumo: That is one of the matters being considered at the present time, and so long as it is understood that in this case the wish cannot go further than the thought. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dodds: Has any contact been made with the Treasury about possible financial support?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot add anything to what I have already said—that this and other projects of this nature are under consideration.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what grounds his Department advised the Secretary of State for the Colonies that single-engined helicopters were unsuitable for surveying, spraying and dusting crops, forest fire patrols and for other uses in the Colonies.

Mr. Profumo: No such advice was given. Helicopters are, however, more costly and at present, I think, less suitable than a conventional aircraft for practically all the uses mentioned. Moreover, the operation of single-engined helicopters over rugged terrain involves a risk of a forced landing under conditions which would make search and rescue operations difficult and expensive.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Member know that a company called Pest Control has done more surveying and spraying of crops in the Colonial Territories than anyone else, and that single-engined helicopters are suitable for this purpose?

Mr. Profumo: If these helicopters are available there is nothing to stop individuals who want to use them from making private contracts for that purpose.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no rugged terrain between Birmingham and London?

Mr. Profumo: That is not the subject of this Question.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will hold a public inquiry, on a scale comparable to that held about Gatwick Airport, in order to allow interested people and organisations to give their views about the advantage to be gained by reaching Central London more quickly by helicopter as against the disadvantage suffered from extra noise before making irretrievable decisions on the Central London helicopter station.

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. One of the main advantages of the helicopter is its ability to operate between city centres, but no decisions will be taken on the site ultimately to be selected for the Central London airstop until more experience has been gained of experimental operations.

Sir R. Acland: Will the Minister take into account the fact that, whereas in the case of all the previous main noisemakers, such as trains, trams, and long-distance aeroplanes—

Mr. Shinwell: And the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

Sir R. Acland: —the number of people advantaged by the machine has been roughly comparable to the number disadvantaged, with this device, unless we can be sure that we can shut the noise out of the streets, the number of people disadvantaged may be altogether disproportionate to the very small number who will gain, at the most, an extra half an hour or 40 minutes of time? Ought not there to be an inquiry into this matter before any definite decision is made?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet. At the same time, however, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of this problem of noise, and the difficulties which it causes to a large number of individuals. The Government are at the present time carrying out investigations into the problem of noise in the hope that we may be able to reduce it. On the other hand, the feature of the helicopter which distinguishes it from all


other forms of transport is its ability to operate between city centres. Unless it is allowed to exploit this characteristic it is obviously useless to continue with its development.

Sir R. Acland: What is the use of developing it if people do not want it?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Before a decision is made and a helicopter station is put in London—if that is the proposal—will some machinery be set up to enable local public opinion to express itself effectively?

Mr. Profumo: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. He knows as well as I do that one cannot take pieces of land without referring to the local authorities concerned. In answer to the question why we should proceed with the development of the helicopter if people do not want it, I think it is the general view of hon. Members that the development of the helicopter is a matter of the greatest interest to this country.

Mr. H. Morrison: Without prejudice to the general development of the helicopter, is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend's point was related to more than the opinion of local authorities? The individual citizen has feelings upon this matter. Is he aware that this machine has caused inconvenience within the precincts of Parliament itself? Letters of complaint have been received from the London County Council and the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Is it not necessary to have a sense of proportion about the passion for speed in travel? There is a need for some speed in other things, but are not the Government taking into account the fact that the use of this vehicle is very, very limited, the number of people who will make use of it is very small, and the inconvenience to many people trying to get on with their daily work may be considerable?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept the entire implications of the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I believe that he intended that I should accept them all. I have already said that we appreciate the inconvenience that may be caused to the public. I have also said that we are doing our best to overcome it and see whether a type of silencer cannot be fitted to helicopters. At the same time,

I would point out that a sense of proportion already exists in the matter. During the last whole week, the movements into the South Bank were, last Thursday, two; last Friday, two; and since then, including today, there have been no movements at all.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that temperamental politicians with Edwardian minds have been content for years that hundreds of thousands of people living near aerodromes should have to put up with much worse noise?

Mr. Profumo: I should not like to enter into an arbitration between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman, but I am fortified by knowing that in this matter the hon. Gentleman is my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morrison: I am charmed by the intervention of my hon. Friend, and he will be glad to know that he will get a good show in the "Evening Standard."

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if he accepts the pleas of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that will be tantamount to ensuring that technical, scientific aeronautical progress in this respect will pass to the foreigner?

Mr. Profumo: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of being tethered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter has had a very good flight.

Sir R. Acland: As the hon. Gentleman refuses to have any inquiry, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the noise made by helicopters in landing and take-offs would be considerably reduced if rotor stations were built on stilts above surrounding rooftops in city centres; and what consideration has been given to this aspect for future development.

Mr. Profumo: The reduction of helicopter noise by providing elevated air-stops is one of the possibilities we must take into account when considering particular proposals. However, it should not


be assumed that the elevation of an air-stop will provide a significant noise reduction in every instance.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that three years ago an experiment was made with a helicopter that came from Paris and landed on the roof of Olympia, and that down at ground level there was no noise distinguishable from the noise of the other traffic, and that, therefore, helicopter stations on stilts above the house tops must be the landing grounds of the future?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think we yet know enough about the performance of helicopters to be absolutely certain about that, but we are taking it into consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In order to offset the noise made by chattering and scratching monkeys, would my hon. Friend undertake to build one of these stations on the top of Transport House?

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under what conditions single-engined helicopters are now considered safe for licensing for passenger services.

Mr. Profumo: The principal condition is that the route selected should permit a safe landing in the event of engine failure, account being taken of the characteristics of the helicopter, the terrain and the general weather conditions.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that my constituents read with admiration of the intrepid voyaging by helicopter both of passengers from London airport and of the Minister of Transport and the Chief of the General Staff and that they would much appreciate an opportunity to share in the dangers of this mode of transport? Is he aware that in many places in my constituency excellent landing areas could be provided—just as good as those in the middle of London?

Mr. Profumo: This is not a landing problem but a problem of the amount of water which has to be crossed in order to reach those parts of the hon. Member's constituency. The more speed we can make with our experiments here, the sooner it will be possible for that part of Britain to share in this great new method of transport.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether a landing on the River Thames itself would be considered a safe landing?

Mr. Profumo: We propose to conduct these operations with aircraft with flotation gear, and landing in those conditions will be all right.

Aircraft Accidents (Investigation Procedure)

Sir R. Perkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in the light of the recent criticism of the report into the accident to a Comet aircraft at Rome in October, 1952, he will revise the investigation procedure in connection with aircraft accidents.

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has decided to extend the existing criteria of a court investigation to include accidents in which it may appear from the preliminary report of the Chief Inspector that such measure of blame may be attached to an individual as seriously to prejudice his career.

Sir R. Perkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that I should like to thank him for that rather satisfactory answer? Will Captain Foote be able to make use of this new proposal?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir; not directly, because changes of regulations of this sort cannot be made retrospective.

Renfrew Maintenance Base

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a further statement on the future of Renfrew Maintenance Base.

Mr. Profumo: Since my right hon. Friend discussed this question with hon. Members on both sides of the House from Scotland at the beginning of June he has heard the views of the Scottish Advisory Council for Civil Aviation, the Scottish Trades Union Congress General Council, a special sub-committee of the trade union side of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and the Board of British European Airways. B.E.A. is, at the request of my right hon. Friend, arranging a further meeting with the trade unions on the economic implications of their proposal, and we are examining with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the views expressed by representative organisations on the


social and industrial consequences of transferring work from Renfrew to London.

Mr. Rankin: May I assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that every effort they make to keep Renfrew Maintenance Base open will have the warmest support of all interests in Scotland?

Errol Airport

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made in arranging for an air service from Errol Airport.

Mr. Profumo: British European Airways have informed my right hon. Friend that they are confirmed in their opinion that they would not be justified in adding to the losses already incurred in the provision of Scottish air services by including a service to Errol in their network. No independent company has applied to operate a service to Errol.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will cause surprise and dismay in Dundee and Perth? Will he not agree that the figures he gave last week showing an increase in air traffic from the East Coast of Scotland proves that the pessimism of his reply is completely unfounded. And will he consider sympathetically the request being made by the Lord Provosts of Dundee and Perth for a meeting with the Minister on this subject?

Mr. Profumo: The question of running air services from Errol has no relation to the answer given last week. However, my right hon. Friend has been sympathetic in this matter. The advice he got he took very largely from British European Airways Corporation. I know my right hon. Friend would be pleased to meet another deputation from that part of Scotland, but I think it might be better if, in the first place, the delegates went to see Lord Douglas as they said they would do when they last met my right hon. Friend.

Internal Air Services

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals he has received from British European Airways or private charter companies for improvement of scheduled

fare-paying passenger air services between London and the North-West of England, notably to serve Liverpool and industrial South Lancashire, and the North Wales littoral.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what applications he has received for the inauguration of an air service between Speke Airport, Liverpool and London on the same lines as that now providing a service between Ringway Airport, Manchester and London.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.

Mr. Nabarro: What will my hon. Friend do to amend this state of affairs? Why should Manchester have a regular air service and Liverpool be deprived of one? Is it not a fact that the Liverpool industrial area, Merseyside and North Wales, is of very great importance, and are we to do without an air service between that area and London in perpetuity?

Mr. Profumo: My answer said nothing about in perpetuity. There does not seem to be the same requirement for Liverpool as for Manchester. There is not at Liverpool the number of passengers prepared to travel by this service that there is in the case of Manchester. It is a financial problem and my right hon. Friend cannot direct British European Airways Corporation to operate services that it regards as uneconomic while at the same time urging them to reduce their deficit generally.

Mr. Johnson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there would be a very wide demand for this service from people who live in the western part of Cheshire, which is very heavily populated?

Mr. Profumo: If that is so, there is nothing to stop an independent company instituting a service.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what has happened to all those private air companies which were going to come in and operate services?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. They are now living a much stronger existence than under the regime of the party opposite. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had still been in power, these companies would not exist at all.

Mr. Beswick: But why do they not operate a service?

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals to institute scheduled fare- paying passenger air services between North and South Wales and between Wales and London he has received from British European Airways; and when the schemes will be put into effect.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir. But authority to operate a passenger service between Wales and London has been conditionally granted to the Welsh Company, Cambrian Air Services Limited.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most discouraging reply? Does he know that B.E.A. operates on routes to all parts of the United Kingdom, including the Isle of Man, but excepting Wales?

Mr. Nabarro: And Liverpool.

Mr. Hughes: When B.E.A. sustained losses between 1946 and 1950 the Welsh people made their contribution towards those losses. Is not it time that the needs and the rights of Wales should be recognised?

Mr. Profumo: I can only say that my right hon. Friend has no statutory powers to force B.E.A. to run on any route which they feel would be uneconomic.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Cambrian Airways have sought permission to fly from Cardiff to North Wales and whether permission has been granted?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I cannot add to what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the date of the last formal consultation between himself or any authorised official of his Department with the trade unions with regard to the proposed raising of the heavy goods speed limit from 20 to 30 miles per hour.

Mr. Molson: We have had no formal consultations with the trade unions on this matter, nor has my right hon. Friend authorised any, but my right hon. Friend has frequently taken informal soundings.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour undertook to hold conversations with those trade unions who did not approve or support the removal of this speed limit? A statement was given to that effect more than a year ago. In view of the fact that no conversations have since taken place, is it not evident that the whole matter has now stagnated?

Mr. Molson: This is not a matter in which the Government are primarily concerned. Until the employers and the trade unions are in agreement about the labour conditions which would apply to the drivers if a change were made in the maximum speed limit, it would be unwise to make any change.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell the House, in his own words, precisely what is the difference between formal consultations and informal soundings?

Mr. Molson: Using my own words, I should say that it is the difference between a friendly chat and formal negotiations.

Mr. McGovern: With the 1922 Committee?

Passenger Service Vehicles (Private Hire)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now completed his consideration of proposals and suggestions, including those of the Thesiger Committee in regard to amendment of the law relating to conveyance of private parties upon special occasions; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Molson: I regret I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) last Wednesday.

Mr. Nabarro: May we have a statement before Christmas, as this matter has now been going on for a couple of years? May I have an assurance that this is one more transport matter which will not be allowed to stagnate?

Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend promised in the answer to which I have


referred to introduce this legislation at the earliest opportunity which the Parliamentary time-table permits.

Road Haulage Undertakings (Compensation Payments)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the main reasons for the fact that £2 million is still owing to hauliers as compensation for nationalisation; and when he expects it will be paid.

Mr. Molson: The amounts payable have yet to be agreed between the British Transport Commission and the transferors, or to be determined or confirmed by the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, as required by the Transport Act, 1947. I cannot say when the last payment will be made, but it will be as soon as the requirements of the Act have been fulfilled.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the fact that many of these hauliers may want to buy their assets back, is this not a most unfortunate situation? If the Government cannot make a rapid payment of this money, cannot they devise some way of allowing these men credit with which they might be able to buy back the lorries which were originally theirs?

Mr. Molson: I am afraid that there is no power under present legislation which enables my right hon. Friend to do that.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his regulations permit a haulier, anxious to buy back assets previously nationalised, to offer in payment his outstanding rights to compensation for nationalisation.

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to make such regulations.

Mr. Grimond: Could the Minister give any idea how many of these men are willing to buy back their assets and are being prevented from doing so by the fact that the Government have not paid them?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir. I am afraid that it would be impossible to obtain that figure.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not all the evidence so far to the effect that those persons who were bought out do not wish to buy themselves back into the industry? Have not the sales been so small that they show that these men have decided not to return?

Mr. Molson: Quite a considerable number have succeeded in buying themselves back.

Mr. Renton: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), is it not possible under the present law to allow a simple set-off of the one transaction against the other?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir, I fear not. Under the 1947 Act a special procedure is provided. Those who had their property nationalised had to accept transport stock in lieu. In the case of the purchase of lorries under the 1953 Act, no provision is made for any set-off or for anything except cash payments.

Mr. Callaghan: Have not most of the people concerned here received substantial payments on account? Is not the matter in dispute what are frequently regarded as the extravagant claims to be met and whether they could be reduced?

Mr. Molson: I certainly could not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is quite impossible to generalise about the large number of claims which are outstanding.

Mr. Callaghan: Have they not had payment on account?

Commercial Vehicles, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the number of commercial vehicles operating in the district of Coventry has been reduced by the removal of British Road Services vehicles to other parts of the country, following purchase under the disposal scheme; and if he will make an investigation into the present position in the Midlands area.

Mr. Molson: I understand that of the limited number of vehicles offered for sale in the Coventry district, 29 have been sold and only a few of these will be based outside the district. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the British


Transport Commission are making their arrangements in this area with full regard to their duty to do so without avoidable disturbance of the transport system.

Miss Burton: If I send the hon. Member some information from Coventry which seems to be in conflict with his statement, is he prepared to look into the matter? We think that this is affecting commercial transport in that area.

Mr. Molson: We will certainly look into it and do anything we can to facilitate matters.

Mr. Ernest Davies: How is it that some vehicles can be based outside the area when it is required under the Act that they should operate from the same bases and carry on precisely the same service? That assurance was given while the Bill was passing through the House—that these services would be continued and that the licensing authority would see that they were not removed from their bases.

Mr. Molson: It is a question of how far they are removed. It is not obligatory under the Act for the purchaser to employ them in exactly the same places whenever they do on to the road.

London (Staggered Working Hours)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he has taken to encourage the staggering of working hours in London in order to relieve the increasing congestion during the peak travel periods both morning and evening.

Mr. Molson: We have already had discussions with the British Transport Commission on this matter. We intend to follow these up by talks with other interested parties, including the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. Davies: In view of the increasing congestion in London, does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is essential that something should be done to extend the staggering of working hours? Will he not refer the problem to the London and Home Counties Advisory

Committee for them to make an investigation and to report?

Mr. Molson: I am not quite sure that that would be the best step to take at present, but I made it plain in a speech recently that I think this suggestion of staggering the hours of work is one of the most constructive and useful suggestions which the hon. Member has made on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANAL SURVEY BOARD

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the name and qualifications of the independent member appointed to the British Transport Commission's Canal Survey Board, after consultation with himself.

Mr. Molson: The two independent members of the Board of Survey are Sir Rex Hodges, formerly general manager and secretary of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and Mr. R. D. Brown, a civil engineer experienced in the design, construction and operation of canals and other public works in this country and abroad.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Member satisfied that these appointments will ensure that the survey will be genuinely objective in character and not subject to any preconceptions about the alleged obsolete nature of canal transport? Secondly, will the Minister tell us when this survey is likely to be available?

Mr. Molson: If my right hon. Friend had not been satisfied that these gentlemen were likely to provide an objective survey he would not have approved their appointment. As regards the second point, I am not able to make any promise upon the subject, but I understand that we are likely to have the results of the survey within the next few months.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is this survey to be published as a White Paper so that it will be available to hon. Members, or is it to be entirely a British Transport Commission publication?

Mr. Molson: That is a matter for the British Transport Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. A. HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the resumption of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government over the Canal Zone.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the question and the grave political consequences that may, and possibly will, arise from it, will you give permission for this Question to be answered, particularly in view of the fact that we know that the 1922 Committee revolted last night and that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has resigned from the Tory Party?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is the judge of the importance of the Question. I have received no request for this Question to be answered after Questions. I have received a request from the Colonial Secretary to answer Question No. 91.

Mr. Lewis: It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has not had an opportunity of asking your permission, but in view of the latest news of the resignation of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely—[Interruption.]

Mr. J. Amery: Would it not be of great assistance to the House and to the debate that is to follow if we could have an answer to this Question?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question for me. I have received no request for this Question to be answered.

Later—

Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of order. In view of the importance of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations in the forthcoming debate, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister can see his way to answer Question No. 54?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members can ask these questions in the debate.

Mr. Shinwell: A great deal of time was spent this afternoon, no doubt quite unwittingly, and I am not complaining, on

a number of Questions regarding transport, which were no doubt very important, but we are to have a debate on foreign affairs and this matter of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations will undoubtedly be raised. Would it not be advisable to have an answer to this Question if, with great respect, that is the wish of the House and the Minister of State has no objection?

Mr. Speaker: The House is about to embark, in Committee of Supply, on a debate on foreign affairs, and, naturally, a matter of this importance is bound to arise. I do not see how I can anticipate it at this stage.

Mr. Shinwell: In that event, are we to understand that the Minister of State, or whoever will reply for the Government, will deal with this question?

Mr. Speaker: I could not answer that question: I really do not know the answer.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Minister of State whether, for the general convenience of the House, he would be willing to answer this Question and to request your permission, Mr. Speaker, to do so? In that case, I imagine that you would permit him to do so.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite irregular to try to anticipate a debate in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Shinwell: Are not the circumstances somewhat exceptional, in view of the fact that a very large number of hon. Members opposite are anxious to hear what the Government have to say in this connection; and, furthermore, in view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has actually resigned because of the Government's attitude to this very important topic? Surely this Question ought to be answered?

Mr. Speaker: The procedure of this House has weathered many vicissitudes, and even the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention do not justify me in departing from its rules.

Mr. Morrison: Personally, I only wish to be helpful and to relieve you, Mr. Speaker, of the responsibility in this matter. I ask whether the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Secretary—

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I will answer the Question in the course of my remarks.

Mr. Morrison: The Prime Minister says he will answer it in the course of his remarks, but surely it would be more convenient to have the Question answered in advance? May I therefore ask the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would be willing to answer the Question now, and, in that case, whether you will permit him, unless we are forbidden to do so by the occasional anti-House of Commons touches of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Question will be answered very early in the debate, I think the House is merely postponing the answer by these questions.

Mr. Lewis: I wish to raise a further point of order with regard to the question which I originally raised. There is an accepted understanding that, if there is to be an important debate, such as we are to embark upon shortly in connection with foreign affairs, and there is a statement that can be made to help and facilitate the conduct of that debate, the House of Commons should be informed. In view of the fact that the Press has reported that certain sections of the Tory Party have been informed at a private meeting upstairs of what has transpired, is it not unfair to hon. Members on this side of the House when a debate is now to take place that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have prior information on a matter of national policy, about which we know nothing?

Mr. Speaker: That is clearly the same point, dressed up again, but not very differently.

Mr. Amery: May I say that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that we have been informed upstairs? May I put a point of order? Is it not somewhat discourteous to the House of Commons that hon. Members should learn in the Press about the result of negotiations on a matter of vital importance to this country, and that they should not be in possession of an official statement before entering upon a debate of this character?

Mr. Speaker: These are all matters for the debate and not for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ALPORT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will make a statement with regard to the outcome of the conversations which he has recently had with the Minister for Finance in the Government of Kenya.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With permission, I will answer Question No. 91.
On 9th December last I announced that, although precise forecasting was difficult, the Kenya Government would need assistance of about £6 million if they were to maintain a reasonable level of liquid resources and continue to meet their obligations until the end of the United Kingdom financial year 1954–55. I also said that if the present rate of emergency expenditure continued, it was possible that more money would be required and Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to review the position in good time.
Unfortunately this has proved to be the case. The rate of expenditure has risen. Moreover, it was well into 1954 before the security forces were fully deployed and a more accurate estimate of their cost was possible. This showed that earlier estimates were below the actual cost. The present rate of expenditure is of the order of £1 million a month of which about one-third represents expenditure on military forces and operations: the rest is the cost of closer administration, the increase in the police forces, the cost of detention and rehabilitation camps, and emergency public works. Although direct military expenditure will not rise in proportion, emergency expenditure is expected to rise to about £1¼ million a month over the next six months.
I have again reviewed the financial position with the Minister for Finance and the Commander-in-Chief, East Africa, and I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A further £5½ million will be required up to the end of March, 1955. This takes into account the extra revenue of £2½ million which the Kenya Government will derive from increases in taxation announced last April. It is expected that


arrangements can be made by the Government of Kenya to provide for working balances by other means, and the sums do not therefore include any margin for this purpose. The expenditure during the last quarter of the Kenya financial year, 1st April to 30th June, 1955, which Her Majesty's Government recognise may continue at a similar rate and which will be taken into account during the United Kingdom financial year 1955–56 is also not covered.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, subject to Parliament, to provide a further grant of £4 million and a further interest-free loan of £1½ million in the present United Kingdom financial year as a contribution towards the cost of Kenya's emergency. It is understood that this assistance will only be called on to the extent that it proves to be needed.
This further assistance will cover Kenya's immediate needs, but it is evident that even after it has become possible to reduce the present military commitment, Kenya's financial position will remain difficult. I have made it clear to the Kenya Government that they will be expected to take all practicable steps to increase their own revenues in order to meet their continuing commitments.
The British Government's help is required—and it has been given—to bring the emergency to an end. If that help were not given, not only would the measures against the terrorists have to be reduced, but the social and economic programme, which represents the constructive plan for Kenya's future, would suffer an unacceptable set back.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this further generous response to an appeal for assistance in Kenya will be very warmly welcomed in this country? May I ask him whether he is satisfied that any conditions attached to the making of this loan or the giving of this grant do not place an undue handicap on the future economic development of Kenya by which alone it will be possible for Kenya to achieve self-financial independence, which is clearly essential if it is to progress in the future?

Mr. Lyttelton: The object of the grant and of the loan is to enable Kenya to finance not only the emergency, but the

large programme of social and economic development which is planned in the Colony.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out the promise he made to us earlier that he would, before the House rises, take the opportunity of giving us a full account of the position in Kenya? It is very difficult to judge the statement that he has made, unless we judge it against the background of the position. Will he consult with the Leader of the House, so that time may be set apart in which he can make a statement on all aspects of the situation in Kenya which the House may discuss afterwards? In the meantime, may I ask him, in anticipation of such an opportunity, whether he will have prepared and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT an account of all the help that we have given to Kenya and the amount raised in Kenya itself so that hon. Members may be enabled to judge the situation? Finally, may I ask whether, in this new allocation made, any proportion or what proportion of it is to be devoted to the plans announced by the new Government for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Kenya?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid that I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question, because that would mean earmarking a specific sum for a specific purpose. These grants have been made in order that the general revenues of Kenya will be available to finance the long-term programme which we had in mind. With regard to the first question, I gave the House two promises. One was that I would make a statement as soon as the financial talks had been concluded, and this statement I have made today. I understand that the matter will go through the usual channels, and if a debate should not take place I will fulfil my promise by making a further statement.

Mr. Griffiths: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on this question of giving a further statement. So far, while we have seen no estimate giving of the cost of the plans, we all welcome the announcement for reconstruction of the new Government. May we be given some estimate of the cost of that, and what proportion of that cost will be covered by this new grant? May I assure the


right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed desirable that these new plans should be pushed forward urgently, and we should like to know what is the cost?

Mr. Lyttelton: These grants cover the immediate position. It is nothing more than an estimate of a very general kind that has been made about the future, because that depends on how soon we can end the emergency.

Mr. F. Harris: While welcoming and supporting the decision of Her Majesty's Government on this disturbing matter, may I ask the Colonial Secretary if he will consider requesting the Kenya Government to set up a committee to investigate any possible wasteful expenditure which may be going on during this period of the present emergency, because it is important to conserve our resources and to ease the burden on the taxpayers, both in Kenya and in this country, arising out of the emergency.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is a matter for the Kenya Government. I cannot promise to hold out any hope to the right hon. Gentleman of yet another committee at the moment.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many propositions contained in the White Paper presented to Parliament as a result of the all-party mission on Kenya earlier this year have not been acted upon? In view of the fact that the United Kingdom taxpayer is called upon to give up substantial amounts to meet this emergency, will the right hon. Gentleman consider telling the Government of Kenya to take speedy action to remove some of the difficulties that give rise to the emergency?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Gentleman would have to be more precise before I could give an answer to that question, and I should like to know what plans he has in mind and whether they have been approved by the Kenya Government or by H.M. Government.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is it not a fact that the Governor of Kenya, Sir Philip Mitchell, in 1946 sent a despatch urging many reforms to the then Colonial Secretary and that nothing very much was done about it?

Mr. J. Dugdale: Further to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for

Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), will the Colonial Secretary also ask the Kenya Government to look into the matter of taxation to see whether the rates of Income Tax and Surtax are anything like comparable with the rates in this country?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already said in my answer that I made it clear that they would be expected to take all practicable steps to increase their revenue. The right hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he tried to draw a close analogy between the taxation of a developing country, where there are many risks, and that which applies in this country. Such a comparison, I think, would be unprofitable.

Mr. Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend avoid the suggestion which has been made that we should transfer to the Kenya Government the penal taxation which we have in this country, in view of the fact that that country wants development and cannot obtain it if taxed to that extent?

Mr. J. Johnson: While welcoming the statement of the Minister, may I ask him if he does not realise that we shall not solve the Kenya emergency merely by outpourings of the United Kingdom taxpayers' money. Will he bear in mind that something more than the shooting war against Mau Mau, more than economic measures, is required to win the hearts of the Kikuyu, and will he please think again about the political advance which is necessary in order to win the loyalty of the African people? Will he again consider direct elections for 1956?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is really trying to widen this matter beyond all knowledge. These grants and this loan by Her Majesty's Government release general revenues pro tanto for other objects which he mentioned. I said in my answer that we could not earmark specific parts of these sums for specific purposes.

Mr. Griffiths: Would it not be to the advantage of hon. Members on both sides of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could say what money was given for the development of the Colonies from 1945 and how much was given in any comparable period before the Second World War?

Mr. Lyttelton: This is getting very far away from the Question on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1954–55

CLASS II

VOTE 1. FOREIGN SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,087,290, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including Her Majesty's Missions and Consulates abroad, control services in Germany and the salaries of two Ministers of State. [£5,100,000 has been voted on account.]—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS

3.51 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: We read the communiqués with regard to the conference at Washington, and we listened with great interest on Monday to the Prime Minister's statement. I think the latter part was more interesting; he seemed to give more his personal impressions, and after all it was the personal contacts which made up the principal value of this visit. For the rest, as is generally the case, the statement was rather uninformative, and, as the Prime Minister has said, almost inevitably platitudinous.
Agreement on general principles is a very excellent thing, but the difficulty sometimes arises in their application. We on this side of the Committee believe that it is essential that the two great Western democracies should march together; that we should have unity of principle and unity of action. We fully acknowledge the services that have been rendered to the world in these difficult postwar years by the United States of America.
The United States of America, by force of circumstance, have assumed the


leadership of the free world. We recognise the difficulties that that has imposed on the United States of America, but I do not think it is really useful to accept general statements and disregard differences of approach. If there are differences they should be stated. It is right that we should know what people are thinking in the United States and that they should know what people are thinking in this country. That is really the object of the debate.
I wish to express this afternoon some anxieties that are felt in this country over certain tendencies in the United States of America, particularly because those tendencies or opinions seem to be strongly held in responsible quarters. We find them in the Senate: I do not think that they are entirely absent from the Administration. In expressing what I feel about these differences, I shall try to do so with moderation and in a spirit of friendliness.
The sheet-anchor of our policy is the United Nations, and we stand on those principles. The United Nations are composed of States of varying ideological conceptions. There seems to be a body in the United States, and a fairly influential body, which seems to regard the United Nations as primarily an instrument in a war of ideologies, as primarily a taking part in an attempt to combat everywhere the theory of Communism. The Prime Minister expressed it very well in his statement. He said:
What a vast ideological gulf there is between the idea of peaceful co-existence vigilantly safeguarded, and the mood of forcibly extirpating the Communist fallacy and heresy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 45.]
The trouble is that there seem to be a large number of people across the Atlantic who hold that second view.
We are as anti-Communist as the United States of America, and we have opposed and will continue successfully to oppose what we believe to be the Communists' misguided doctrines. We are also against aggression, and we are not in the least apologists for the Communists. We recognise their dangers and their errors; but we believe, as the Prime Minister has said, in "peaceful co-existence." We oppose aggression, we oppose Communist infiltration tactics; we recog-

nise the need for adequate strength but we stand for peaceful co-existence, and I think that the test here is the attitude towards China.
We all hope that the South-East Asia Conference at Geneva may succeed and in doing so settle the question of Indo-China. We fully recognise the dangers in that situation, and we, have paid our tribute in this House to the efforts of the Foreign Secretary. I am bound to say that I think it is regrettable that the American Secretary of State left that Conference. I think it is regrettable that that very wise statesman General Bedell Smith also seems to have withdrawn; and although Mr. Dulles has got back as far as Paris, he still seems to be holding off the Geneva Conference. That plays right into the hands of the Communists, who all allege that it is the object of Mr. Dulles to smash the Geneva Conference. It is unfortunate to give a handle like that to the Communists.
We hope there may be a settlement, but we must recognise that if we can get a standstill or an armistice in Indo-China it is only one step. There remains the difficult question of Korea. I believe that the settlement of these questions is intimately bound up with the problem of the seat of China in the Security Council, and with the problem of Formosa.
I was a little disturbed when the Prime Minister said that this arose rather out of the blue—the phrase he used was that
it played no notable part in our discussions,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 47.]
I should have thought that in any approach to the problems of South-East Asia that matter should have been all the time in the minds of those taking part. I recall discussing these matters in 1950 with President Truman. We had long discussions, and, as we stated in our communiqué, we took different views on certain matters; but I do not think for a moment that we thought that this matter was not vitally important to a settlement. That really turns on what one's attitude is towards China and the People's Government of China.
It is one thing to say that the Chinese Government cannot be admitted to her seat in the Security Council as long as she engaged in aggression. "Engaged in aggression" does not mean until there is an entire peace settlement in Korea. It


is quite another to say that because the People's Government in China is Communist, she cannot be admitted. Yet one finds that urged on the other side of the Atlantic. We hold that this is wrong, that it is unwise, and that it is contrary to the principles of the United Nations.
I think we have all to recognise that there is in this matter quite naturally a very great deal of emotion on the other side of the Atlantic. They have had many heavy losses in Korea. I think there is a good deal of apprehension about Communist aggression—I think rather more than there is here. One of the troubles in the world today is the mutual fear both of the people behind the Iron Curtain of those outside and of the people outside of those behind the Iron Curtain. But fear is a very bad counsellor.
There are some hotheads undoubtedly—I hope not many—who still think of a war against Communist China and the putting back on his throne of Chiang Kai-shek. I think that is militarily foolish and politically it ignores all the lessons of history. The history of all revolutions shows that revolutions are consolidated and made more extreme by external attack. The outstanding examples, of course, are revolutionary France and Communist Russia. But if one rules out the idea of an all-out war against Communism, then one comes back, as the Prime Minister did, to peaceful coexistence and the hope that, if peace can be preserved over the years, intercourse may gradually modify ideological fanaticism. That is what we want in respect of Russia and China.
I give full weight to emotional feelings with regard to China, but I think we here ought to try to look at the matter as the Chinese themselves look at it. I claim no special knowledge of China—I hope to gain a little shortly—and I have only the knowledge we all have from books and from certain intercourse with China. I can understand perfectly the American fear of militant Communism and of possible Chinese aggression throughout Asia, but it is worth while looking at it from the other point of view.

Sir Walter Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman give his assessment of the active part that China has played in prolonging and increasing the war in Indo-China'? Until

we get his assessment of that, we cannot really understand what he is talking about.

Mr. Attlee: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is so quick-witted that he has anticipated the points I was about to make. We are seeking peace in Indo-China. I was saying that we recognise fully the losses which America has sustained and we hope, by a peaceful settlement, to avoid any further losses there. I was saying that there is a Chinese point of view. Here there is a revolutionary Government which is undoubtedly supported by the mass of the people, and the reason for that is clear. First, there is the immense force of Chinese nationalism; and Chinese nationalism is not exactly the same as Chinese Communism. It may be exploited by the Communists, but the reality of the rise of nationalism in Asia cannot be doubted.
Secondly, they have taken steps to bring to an end certain evils of feudalism and landlordism. They have, in fact, delivered some of the goods to the peasantry, who are the great mass in China. As a parallel we must remember that the success of Lenin in Russia was not really due to the ideological views of Communism but because he offered them peace and bread. Now the Communists have offered China nationalism and the land. That has undoubtedly made an enormous appeal, and perhaps it is worth while in considering that to remember that if we want to counteract the spread of Communism in the less developed lands, we have also to consider the position of the peasantry and of the people in those undeveloped lands.
Therefore, there is that view to be taken and also, one must remember, there is a very strong anti-colonialism. I do not say that we all subscribe to the Chinese view of what the West has done in China, but there is that view. Incidentally, it is a view that was very strongly supported, in their attacks on the British Empire, by the Americans through the years. Anti-colonialism did not spring entirely from the Asiatic continent.
The Chinese, therefore, regard themselves as expressing Chinese nationalism and also Communist ideology. They wanted nationalism and they needed the practical steps they took about the land. They defeated Chiang Kai-shek and he


was driven to the island of Formosa, where undoubtedly, without external aid, his rule would have been brought to an end.
At this point there was the intervention of the United States of America, and Formosa—which the Chinese regard as part of China, though for 50 years it was under Japanese rule, but for centuries it was part of China and it is their view that it is part of China—is now held against them. What is more, the person who is supported there is given the seat which they think belongs to themselves on the Security Council.
It is worth while thinking of a parallel there. Supposing, when the American revolution happened, General Burgoyne, instead of surrendering at Saratoga, had been thrust into Long Island. Suppose also that some king in Europe, who objected strongly to republicanism, had supplied him with arms and a fleet and had prevented the Americans getting at him. I do not think that Washington and its friends would have regarded that as a very friendly act. It may be said that this is far-fetched but one must try to look at it from the other point of view. I suggest, therefore, that the two things which stand in the way of a settlement are precisely these—Formosa and the seat at U.N.O.
When one expects to get a settlement of, let us say, Korea—I am not suggesting for a moment that I approve of the aggression in Korea—or the question is asked, "Why does it take so long to stop the war in Indo-China?" I think the answer is that at the back of their minds the Chinese regard it as an imperialistic attack upon them.
I know of the difficulties with regard to getting that seat for China, and I know how strongly the Americans feel on the matter. There is no doubt an obligation to Chiang Kai-shek. However, he is getting an old man now and he commands ageing forces. I think it is time that they, the leaders, were pensioned off, and I believe that the mass of the rank and file would be glad to return to China.
I understand that the Americans fear the occupation of Formosa. We have thrown out the suggestion that for a period of years Formosa should be held in trusteeship by the United Nations. It

is said, "Let us settle the immediate questions of Indo-China and Korea and disregard these long-term matters." The point that I am putting is that we shall not get a settlement easily, if at all, of these immediate matters unless we have in contemplation a long-term policy towards China. Therefore, I think that we must work, if we can, to try to obtain this all-round settlement. I think, too, that here a very important part can be played by the Colombo Powers, the majority of whom are in the British Commonwealth. I know that the Foreign Secretary has kept in close touch with them.
I am convinced that it is vitally important in all these matters that we should carry the opinion of Asiatic countries with us, and I would stress again the fact that part of the Chinese movement is not Communist but nationalist and as nationalist it draws the sympathy of the immense mass of the people of Asia. The suggestion is made that China is a mere tool in the hands of Soviet Russia. I am not in a position to judge. It is true that China has sought the aid of Soviet Russia, but when one is in a difficulty like that one is apt to seek the nearest help. The United States, in revolution, were very glad of the help of Republican France, though no one suggests that Washington and Jefferson approved of the Terror in Paris. I am putting that as a parallel because it is necessary to step outside one's own particular background and take an objective view of this matter.
I say that the success of the Communists is not their ideological doctrines—I hope that they will disappear—but what they are doing in raising the standard of living and giving hope to the peasantry for the first time. It seems that they have managed to unite the peasantry and the Chinese intelligentsia, and our method of opposing Communism must not be all-out war but trying to do far better what the Communists are professing to do for the under-privileged.
I should like to say a word here on the Security Pact. I do not know how far that has gone in conversations. I am quite sure that it is vitally important that one should secure the approval and support of our Asian comrades in the Commonwealth.
The next point that I should like to raise is again one rather of complaint


and refers to Europe. We all know how vital the support of the United States is to Western Europe. We recognise both the strength and the generosity of the United States, but there are some matters that cause disquiet. We object very strongly where States are threatened by force, but I think that we object also where they are threatened with financial loss. I am aware that this is done by an irresponsible Senator, but the point is that Senators in the United States are not irresponsible. The Senate has its power in foreign affairs and these ideas have been supported by influential circles.
It was once suggested that if the rest of the world thought that China should come into the United Nations, the United States should leave and cut off the money. The suggestion has also been put forward that if certain States do not sign up with the E.D.C., American aid should be cut off. That is not a good thing to say. It rather suggests to me the old-fashioned heavy father who said to his boy, "Unless you marry the girl of my choice, I will cut off your allowance." It does not make for good relationships between father and son, or even between someone and Uncle Sam. It is quite clear that that kind of thing provokes very great irritation among people on this side of the Atlantic, and indeed everywhere.
I will not say much today on the subject of the E.D.C. The matter is still in balance as to what the French do. I hope that the French will ratify. I do not think that it is a good plan to try to bring all kinds of pressure to bear. We have to build up the strength of the West on good feeling. I myself think that the position is dangerous and, although it may not have been tactful, I am afraid that there is truth in what Adenauer said—that the alternative to some form of Germany taking part in collective defence will sooner or later be a German, unrestrained, national army.
I should like to comment on one or two other matters. One is Guatemala. There was a very balanced article in "The Times" today. I do not suppose that many of us know very much about Guatemala. I certainly did not, but here one had the case of a small State with which we had no particular reason to be friendly because it has always claimed British Honduras. This small State was warned that an attack was imminent

from neighbouring States. It sought to get arms. Those arms were denied it. Arms went into the neighbouring States. It turned out that its apprehension was correct. It was attacked from neighbouring States, it was overrun, and a new Government was installed.
I hold no brief for the Guatemalan Government. I do not know whether it was Communist or partly-Communist. I know that one of the complaints made against it was that it was taking 200,000 acres of land for the peasants from a wealthy corporation without compensation. That may or may not be right. The fact is that this was a plain matter of aggression, and one cannot take one line on aggression in Asia and another line in Central America. I confess that I was rather shocked at the joy and approval of the American Secretary of State at the success of this putsch. It is quite easy to say that these were Communists, but our laws do not allow one to assault a person because one does not like his opinion. One has to remember that the rule of law has sometimes been vindicated by people who were not always respectable clients. There was John Wilkes, who is generally held to have stood on two occasions for liberty, although otherwise I do not think that he was regarded as a very respectable person.
It is serious because we cannot pass this off as just a Central American squabble, of which there are so many. There was a principle involved and that principle was the responsibility of the United Nations. I think it was a mistake in those circumstances to try to hand it over to a regional body. We might also have talk of handing something over to a regional body in other parts of the world, and I do not think we would like the results very much. Therefore, I am afraid that Guatemala has left a rather unpleasant taste in one's mouth because, to illustrate the theme I was putting, it seems in some instances that the acceptance of the principles of the United Nations is subordinated to a hatred of Communism.
Another word I wanted to say was in regard to Egypt. I am sorry we had not more information. Are negotiations to begin again? Is it not time that we got a settlement there? I believe the troops long to come out of Egypt. I believe that


military opinion now does not think it awfully good to have a base in a country that does not want us there. I know there are difficulties. I know there are apprehensions in other countries, in Palestine and the rest. We want a settlement in the Middle East. I know how difficult these Egyptian negotiations are; we had them for many years in our Government. We were held up very largely because we were not prepared to hand over the Sudan as a pawn in the negotiations. That has now been dealt with and there is an urgent need to get a settlement here. I do not know whether the Prime Minister discussed this matter of Egypt and the Middle East at all. If so, perhaps he will be able to say something about it.
Finally, I come to the question—which I am afraid I shall tire the House by mentioning often—of the hydrogen bomb. It does still remain the outstanding menace hanging over all civilisation. I am sure the Prime Minister discussed that with the President. I think it is time, if he can possibly arrange it, that he should discuss it with Mr. Malenkov. I am quite sure it is no good putting this thing off. We had a Disarmament Conference. I thought the plan put forward by the Minister of State and the French was an admirable plan. I believe that a practical plan can be worked out with good will, but we shall not get it unless we get a more overall understanding. I do not think the thing is insuperable; I do not think we must despair of getting it, and I am sure it is a matter that we must keep in our minds all the time, as people the world over are worried at this menace to our civilisation.

4.24 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): We have all listened with interest and attention to the calm speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has delivered upon the subject of the statement which I was called upon to make last Monday and also on the general field of foreign affairs. I must say that when listening to the right hon. Gentleman, while paying every tribute to his moderation and desire to mention any fact which he thought fairness required, my general impression of his speech was that it was one long whine of criticism against the United States—

Mr. George Craddock: Scandalous.

The Prime Minister: We are still allowed to debate and not merely to yelp from below the Gangway. It was one long criticism against the United States—[HON. MEMBERS "Nonsensel—and, of course, of advancing the importance, if not the virtues, of Communist China. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the entry of China into the United Nations organisation. I thought the statement I made on Monday covered that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, in principle one cannot conceive that China would be forever excluded from the United Nations, but, on the other hand, one really does not see why this particular moment would be well chosen for its admission when it is still technically at war with the United Nations—technically, I say—and when it is at this moment going to achieve a resounding triumph by the success of the stimulated war in Indo-China, in which it has played so great a part.
I am sure that to choose such a moment as this to try to force the entry of Communist China into the United Nations would be to complicate altogether the very grave affairs we have to deal with in so many other questions and would be regarded as a most harsh and uncalled-for act of unfriendliness by the mighty people of the United States, to whom we all owe much and from whom no Government ever received more than the Government of the party opposite.

Mr. Attlee: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite caught the import of my remarks. The point was that a large number of people say they will never have China in the United Nations and they will never do anything in regard to Formosa. My point was that unless we held out the prospect that when these things are settled that will happen, there will be no immediate settlement. I never suggested that at this very moment it could be done.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear that, because in any case it would be very difficult to deal with the matter at this very moment, there being no session of the United Nations—unless one were specially called—until the third week in September. Even then I do not think we could form our view clearly without a


proper study of the circumstances as they existed at the time.
As I was listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I felt it was all for consideration for China and, very moderately expressed, but none the less very notable, criticisms of the United States. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "Korea." I think I must ask him to look back a little on his own past—the good parts in it as well as the other parts. It is only a little while ago that he joined the United States in repelling Communist aggression in Korea. Although our country and the United States have made great sacrifices—our sacrifices have been such that many families in this country feel their pangs—there are 20 times as many casualties which fell on the Americans. And when a country has recently lost 20,000 killed and 80,000 or something like that—wounded, and poured out vast sums of money, it is natural that they feel certain emotions—I think that is the right word—certain emotional manifestations, about what happens in the country for which these sacrifices were made, and made with the full agreement and active support of the right hon. Gentleman.
It is surely not a moment, the present moment, when the situation is what it is in Indo-China; and when all these memories of Korea are still lively in the United States; and when no cessation of the technical war with U.N.O. has been achieved, for us to raise such a matter in a strenuous fashion with the United States on a visit which was intended to clear up misunderstandings, and not to aggravate by sharp expression any of the necessary and natural differences which exist between great free communities working together.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke also about Chiang Kai-shek and Formosa. Chiang Kai-shek used to be very popular in this country. I remember his being thought to be the future leader of the new Asia. And, of course, his views about India and its connection with the British Crown caused no obstacles to the admiration with which he was regarded by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on that side of the House. But I was rather astonished at the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman made to compare Chiang Kai-shek with General

Burgoyne. I must say, you could hardly pick two figures more different.
And also I thought it rather odd that, speaking of Guatemala, of what had happened in Guatemala, this should raise in his mind the memory and story of the life of John Wilkes. These are very farfetched comparisons to bring together. Personally, I cannot see that if General Burgoyne had been established on Long Island, and had set up an independent State there, he would in any way have resembled what is the position of Chiang Kai-shek who, having for a very long time fought on our side, or on the American side, with American aid and support, was driven out of his country by a Communist revolution—which incidentally killed, I believe in cold blood, something which is estimated to be between. 2 million and 3 million persons—and who took refuge upon Formosa, where he still remains. I certainly do not see anything in the conduct of China which has yet happened which should lead the American Government to deliver Formosa to Communist China.
Nor do I see any reason why at some subsequent date Formosa should not be treated in the manner which the right hon Gentleman described, and placed in the custody of the United Nations. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to harm our relations with the United States; but I can assure him that the speech he has made, although so temperately expressed, will undoubtedly make a bad impression—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and more difficult the settlement of the many awkward questions which we have to deal with in common with the United States. That is what I have to say about that.
We are not going to raise this question of the entry of Communist China into the United Nations at present. We think that September is the first time that it can be raised, and we believe that it might be better for all concerned, and for all the interests represented, that it should be postponed until a later period. I must point out to the Committee—before you start shouting with anger at me who has done you no harm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we keep some of our indignation for the quarters to which it really belongs—

Miss Jennie Lee: Not today.

The Prime Minister: We follow the policy outlined by the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which I described on Monday, and which, as far as I know, still continues to be the policy of the British Government, and which has commanded a very considerable measure of acceptance, if not of agreement, in the United States.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I quite agree that the timing and the moment for the raising of this is a matter for careful consideration; but the right hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate that the statement which I made, and to which I adhere, was made while hostilities were proceeding; and it should not be assumed from that that in the very different circumstances—though I wish they were still better—that now obtain, there is not such a change of circumstances as may well warrant a revision of the judgment then made in conditions of hostility.

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that if at the present moment an agitation were set on foot to bring Communist China into the United Nations, the American feeling would be that they were succeeding in shooting their way in. Not only has there been no settlement in Korea, but there has been very grave aggravation of all our anxieties by what has happened, and is happening, in Indo-China. We all hope that better results may be achieved in Indo-China, and that more peaceful arrangements, bringing at any rate the fighting to an end, may be gained. If so, no one would deserve more praise for his extraordinary perseverance and skill than the Foreign Secretary, who, even at this moment, is tirelessly continuing his efforts with the utmost patience. I only hope that nothing that has been said, or will be said, in this debate will, by rousing American feeling, make his task and the prospect of success more difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman finished by saying something about the hydrogen bomb and about a possible meeting with Mr. Malenkov. If today I have nothing to add to or subtract from anything which I have previously said upon this subject, and ask the Committee not to press me upon the matter, I can assure hon. Members that it is not because it does not hold a lively place in my mind. I certainly feel that it is extraordinary that

the noble theme, as I called it, which President Eisenhower put forward to the United Nations has not received more acceptance from the Soviet, and it seems to me that it might well be a subject on which at a certain stage, and when the right time comes, there might be a meeting on the highest level; but all this must depend, as I said, not only upon the timing but also upon the course of events.
While I in no way diminish or recede from what I have said in the past, I could not refer to the topic without warning anyone who is sympathetic to the idea of the great risks which are run that not merely false hopes would be raised and broken but that the situation itself might be rendered more severe if such top-level meetings took place without any satisfactory effect.
I made a statement last Monday which was criticised in some quarters as having something in it of the nature of a speech. I certainly have no desire to detain the Committee for any length of time this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of Egypt and I was asked whether I would answer the Question of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. H. Morrison: That was earlier.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Before the Leader of the Opposition spoke.

The Prime Minister: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. That is something to look forward to.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether we would make a further statement on the resumption of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government over the Canal Zone. Discussions with the Egyptian Government have been resumed but no point has been reached at which any statement could be made at present.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: The right hon. Gentleman made one yesterday.

The Prime Minister: That is quite untrue. The hon. Member is never lucky in the coincidence of his facts with the truth. No question of the terms which are being discussed or may be discussed


was involved; there was no question of stating them to a party committee. If ever they were stated at all, it would in the first instance be in the House of Commons, but I am very doubtful whether it would be a good thing to begin negotiations by a categorical statement of terms which would almost invest them with an air of an ultimatum, because one thing plays in with another and has to be balanced against another, and in these conversations it is a good thing to keep little things open at the same time and then probably find agreement among them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the 1922 Committee?"]
The committee which I addressed last night was not the 1922 Committee. It was the military sub-committee of the Defence Committee, not the 1922 Committee, and it was in fact attended by practically the same Members. I hope that when I make inquiries about any of the very numerous similar committees and consultations which take place on the other side of the House, I shall be given an equally exact and suitable reply.

Mr. E. Shinwell: rose—

The Prime Minister: This has nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman. I am not prepared to give way. I raised the question of Egypt with the President when I was in Washington.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that if I were to give way on such a point as this the right hon. Gentleman might think there was some truth in that allegation.
I raised the question of Egypt with the President. I have for some time been of opinion that the United States have a strategic interest in Egypt as well as their interest in the international waterway of the Suez Canal and that the responsibility for both these matters should no longer be allowed to rest exclusively with Great Britain. Although, of course, the strategic importance of Egypt and the Canal has been enormously reduced by modern developments of war, it cannot be wholly excluded from American thoughts where the recent extension of N.A.T.O.'s southern flank to Turkey is concerned.
I have dealt with the suggestion which has been made in the papers that some announcement was made to Conservative Members of Parliament about the terms and negotiations with Egypt and I can give the Committee the assurance that nothing of that kind took place. We had discussions and arguments among ourselves, as I believe is not by any means confined to this party.
I have only a few points to add to the statement which I made on Monday. I am sometimes reproached with having led France to expect that Britain would be a full member of the European Defence Community. When in 1950 I proposed at Strasbourg the creation of a European army, I had in mind—and it is clear from my speech—the formation of a long-term grand alliance under which national armies would operate under a unified allied command. The policy of the alliance would, I assumed, be decided jointly by the Governments of the participating countries. My conception involved no supranational institutions and I saw no difficulty in Britain playing her full part in a scheme of that kind.
However, the French approached this question from a constitutional rather than a purely military point of view. The result was that when they and the other five Continental nations worked out a detailed scheme, it took the form of a complete merger of national forces under federal supranational control. The late Government, in a joint declaration made at Washington in 1951, gave their support to this E.D.C. plan, but they made it clear that Britain, whilst ready to associate herself closely with the new organisation, would not be a full member. I agreed with this. That was the situation when we became responsible for the Government, and we have persevered in that policy ever since.
I still regret, looking back on the past, that the late Government did not accept the French invitation to take part in the framing of the plan of E.D.C. If they had, it might have been possible to obtain an agreement on a scheme of a less federalistic nature in which Britain could have played a fuller part. But regrets about the past and theoretical differences should not lead us to under-estimate the practical value in terms of defence which the E.D.C. scheme offers, and for that


reason I have no doubt whatsoever that the Government and the official Opposition are right in giving E.D.C. their support and encouraging France to ratify the Treaty. But I do hope that disputes about the form of things will not be allowed to bulk too large.
A few months ago we agreed to dedicate a British division to the E.D.C., and this gave much satisfaction to our French friends. But, after all, what difference did it make in fact? The division was still composed of the same men; it wore the same uniform; it stood in the same place in the line of battle where it was intended by General Gruenther, the Supreme Commander, to place it. It could be moved about by him in peace or war. All that happened was that it was dedicated by us to the French conception of E.D.C., and this gave a good deal of pleasure.
But, after all, what counts in matters of defence are the physical facts. We must not lose our sense of proportion or allow theoretical differences to dim our vision of the outstanding realities on which our life and safety depend. What are these realities? By the combined working of the E.D.C. scheme with N.A.T.O., the British, Canadian and United States forces would be brought into the Continental line of defence together with all their European comrades. All will stand together on the same front. All will be under a single commander, by whom all can be disposed and moved about in national homogeneous divisions. Surely, this giant fact should not be overlooked for the sake of complicated and almost metaphysical argument, however intricate or exciting it may be.
In the Washington statement to which I referred when I spoke on Monday, the President and I declared that we were
agreed that the German Federal Republic should take its place as an equal partner in the community of Western nations where it can make its proper contribution to the defence of the free world. We are determined to achieve this goal, convinced that the Bonn and Paris treaties provide the best way.
We also said that we
welcomed the recent statement by the French Prime Minister that an end must be put to the present uncertainties,

and expressed
our conviction that further delay in the entry into force of the E.D.C. and Bonn Treaties would damage the solidarity of the Atlantic nations.
Her Majesty's Government, like its predecessor, support wholeheartedly the policy of the European Defence Community. We are sure that this is the best and the safest way in which Germany can be rearmed and enabled to play its necessary and vital part in the scheme of European unity and reconciliation. There is a wider measure of agreement for E.D.C. than for any other plan that has been conceived or proclaimed, and certainly the scheme for German participation in an international army with a force of 12 divisions cannot be regarded as excessive when we remember the strength of the Soviet armies.
These comprise an immediate strength in the forward areas of Europe of 30 active divisions, mostly armoured and mechanised, which could be increased to a total of considerably over 100 divisions at what is called in military parlance D plus 30. Moreover, N.A.T.O. have already stated publicly that the Soviet world strength on the 30th day of mobilisation would, including the European satellite countries, amount to 400 divisions. I do not feel that the question of 12 German divisions ought to bulk out of all proportion when we consider the general situation.
We cannot tell, however, whether the French Assembly will ratify the E.D.C. Treaty during their present session, which will probably end in August. This Treaty was signed by the French Government more than two years ago. If it does not come into force in the very near future, a most difficult situation will arise. The Bonn Conventions which bring the occupation of the German Federal Republic to an end cannot, as they at present stand, enter into force unless the E.D.C. Treaty enters into force at the same time.
In this situation the German Federal Republic is still denied the political benefits of the Bonn Conventions signed by all the Governments concerned more than two years ago. Confronted by this problem, the British and United States Governments have come to the conclusion that in the unhappy event of the failure to ratify E.D.C., their aim could best


be achieved by dissociating the Bonn Conventions in simultaneity from the passing of the E.D.C. Treaty, and if possible this should be done by agreement between the four Powers which signed those Conventions. Any other course in the face of these long and indefinite delays would be contrary to the standards of good faith and fair play which we desire to maintain towards all nations, including those with whom we have been at war.

Mr. Attlee: This is a very important statement. This would seem to give a great accession of sovereignty to Germany without the integration of German defence forces into a European Army. There is then a danger that Germany will rearm on her own. There may be provisions for control, but they become more and more difficult with each accession of sovereignty. I would ask, before this is definitely approved, that the House should he called together.

The Prime Minister: We have not gone away yet. We must consider all these matters when circumstances are before us.
I shall not attempt this afternoon to forecast what arrangements would be needed to secure the agreement of Germany to confine the use of her restored sovereign rights within standard limits of safety comparable to that which has been effected by E.D.C. It is clear, however, that discussions of these matters would entail the deferment of German rearmament for the time being, with the necessary provision of continued financial support for the Allied Forces in Germany during this period. I understand that some announcement in this sense is going to be made in the United States today.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I have been endeavouring to follow what the right hon. Gentleman said, especially in the last paragraph of his statement. I am sure the Committee would be obliged if he would repeat it, because he says that a similar statement is to be made by the United States, and we should like to know what it is.

The Prime Minister: The statement to which I have referred is this: It is clear that the discussion on what is to happen to Germany if E.D.C. fails, and on what would happen in the course of restoring her liberties under the Bonn Conventions,

would entail a deferment of German rearmament for the time being, with the necessary provision for the continued financial support for the Allied Forces in Germany, during this period.
The French Government have been informed of our intention to proceed along the lines I have indicated. Should the French Chamber fail to ratify the E.D.C. Treaty, we still hope that we shall not be forced to separate the two Treaties and to make other arrangements to replace in some form or other the satisfactory plan of German rearmament set forth in E.D.C. If these difficulties are solved and if the E.D.C. Treaty entered into force shortly, the problems to which I have referred would not confront us.

Mr. William Warbey: This is an extremely important matter upon which the Committee desire eludication. Can the Prime Minister say whether any time-limit has been set by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government for the ratification of E.D.C. by the French Parliament; and secondly, what would be the juridical position of the West German Government in relation to the creation of national armed forces in the event of the Bonn Conventions being brought into force?

The Prime Minister: No time-limit has been definitely fixed, yet at the same time we cannot go on keeping all this matter hanging in the air indefinitely. There must be a moment when, in justice and fair play to Germany, some relief similar to that which was signed in the Treaties of two years ago should be accorded. That would require other rearrangements in the military sphere. I should have thought there was very general agreement upon this being the way to proceed.
We are showing no impatience at all and are giving every opportunity to the French, but we recognise that we have to be fair with the Germans. If they were cut out of what they had been promised by all of us two years ago, it would be a very bad thing, and if we, so to speak, felt that we had been guilty of breaking faith with them or with Dr. Adenauer.
I have had handed to me a communiqué issued in Paris at 4.30 p.m. today. Perhaps I might read it in conclusion to the Committee, as it is relevant to the matters which are in all our minds. It


says that General Bedell Smith is going back to Geneva. The communiqué is as follows:
We have had intimate and frank discussions. These have resulted in a clear understanding of our respective positions in relation to Indo-China. The United States Secretary of State, Mr. Foster Dulles, explained fully the attitude of his Government towards the Indo-China phase of the Geneva Conference and the limitations which that Government desired to observe as not itself having primary responsibility for the Indo-Chinese war.
The French Premier and Foreign Minister, Mr. Mendes-France, expressed the view, with which Mr. Eden, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the United Kingdom, associated himself, that it would nevertheless serve the interests of France and of the Associated States, and of the peace and freedom of the area, if the United States, without departing from the principles that Mr. Dulles expressed, were once again to be represented at Geneva at the ministerial level.
Accordingly, President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles are requesting the United States Under-Secretary of State, General Bedell Smith, to return to Geneva at an early date.
This is as good a moment to sit down as I am likely to find.

5.7 p.m.

Mr, John Strachey: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has once again laid not only this Committee but the whole country, and indeed the world, under a debt of gratitude to him, for the speech which he made this afternoon. It was one of his most notable pronouncements on foreign affairs. He said things which had to be said; which were unpleasant to say, but he said them in the most temperate and reasonable way that they could be said, as the Prime Minister himself admitted.
These things had to be said not merely for the sake of expressing opinions held in this country, but also to give expression to much opinion in the United States of America which seldom gets any expression in the United States Press or in any other form of publication. Unfortunately, in the United States there is today a sort of voluntary totalitarianism in which minority opinion, if it is minority opinion, gets very little chance of expression at all. I am not saying that it would be persecuted if it were expressed, but it seems difficult in the United States for what may be unpopular opinions, with powerful sections, to find any expression. I remember speaking to

a very experienced old Washington correspondent the very first time I visited the United States of America, 25 years ago. He said, "This is a unanimous country. There is little expression of any opinion contrary to that of the official section."
It is, therefore, doubly important that what I believe is the underlying view in many American circles should find expression—if it cannot find expression in the United States—in this Chamber. While no doubt the Prime Minister is correct in saying that many leaders in Congress and in the United States Press may be irritated by what my right hon. Friend said, I believe that there are many millions of private citizens in the United States who will actually find sanity, comfort and support in the temperate views which my right hon. Friend has expressed in this Committee today.
I want to take up only one theme on which he spoke and to enlarge a little upon it. That is the theme of the hydrogen bomb. He spoke of it, and it also seemed the most interesting and important part of the statement which we had from the Prime Minister two days ago.
The first few remarks of that statement contained some real meat. It was shown that the thing which had originally taken the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over to the United States was not the Far Eastern crisis, but the statement by Representative Sterling Cole on the hydrogen bomb. In that statement Mr. Cole gave particulars of the effect of the explosion, and said that a cavity about a mile in diameter had been torn in the bed of the ocean, into which an atoll had disappeared. As the Prime Minister said, that statement profoundly affected our defence policy.
It is from the defence angle that I want to consider the question for a few minutes. When one's defence policy is profoundly affected one's whole world policy is also profoundly affected. I do not agree that the existence of the hydrogen bomb makes this country impotent. No hon. Member who took part in or listened to the debate on civil defence the other day—and I wish that more hon. Members had done so—can deny that we are terribly vulnerable to the hydrogen bomb. But the real factor which will emerge is that not only we but everybody else is almost equally vulnerable. It may


even emerge, in the end, that our relative position in regard to the hydrogen bomb is an improvement as compared to what it was when the atom bomb was the supreme weapon.
During the period of the atom bomb there was some truth in the view that a small, densely populated country like ours could be overwhelmed by an atomic attack, while vast countries like the United States and Russia were relatively much less vulnerable. That is much less true today, in the epoch of the hydrogen bomb. We are now all very much in the same boat. The only difference now is that it would take a few more bombs to knock out Russia or America than it would to knock out this country—and there will be plenty of hydrogen bombs available on all sides. One of the most formidable facts that have emerged is that scientists, with what I can only call devilish ingenuity—I do not wish to offend them by saying that—have made it possible to produce hydrogen bombs far more easily than anyone anticipated.
I wish to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister for his imaginative realisation of the profound effect which the hydrogen bomb has upon this country. He is already aware of something which the leading statesmen of America, Russia and every other country will realise in due course. That is, at any rate, the view taken by very able and authoritative American opinion. I do not know whether any hon. Members saw the account given by the American commentators, the Allsop brothers, who are very closely in touch with the defence authorities in the United States of America. After commenting on the fact that the existence of the hydrogen bomb had profound consequences for British defence policy they added that, sooner rather than later, it would be realised that it had almost equally profound consequences for the United States itself.
In their article of 3rd July they said:
In 12 or 18 or 24 months some other episode can be expected to arouse the people and the policy makers of this country to the peril of America, and we shall then react to our total peril, for it will be total by then, in just about the same way that the British have reacted. We sleep now as the British slept until this winter, and it will be a nightmare to awake.
In other words, they said that the United States would awaken to her vulnerability

to the hydrogen bomb just as the United Kingdom has already awakened to it.
Not only the United Kingdom and the United States are vulnerable; Russia is equally, and, in some respects, more vulnerable still. Every country is appallingly exposed to the hydrogen bomb. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the existence of the hydrogen bomb imposes any special impotence upon this country. But it does impose a new conception of defence policy and, consequently world policy, on the part of all countries. First and foremost, it imposes the conception that Britain can fight only, in the very last resort, against the threat of actual conquest and enslavement. For any other purposes war, as an instrument of policy, is something which no leader certainly in the democracies, and, I believe, in the other countries also, will face when it comes to the point; because it would mean annihilation.
The Prime Minister was one of the first people to realise what it really means to live in the world of the hydrogen bomb. The consequences of the existence of the hydrogen bomb upon that Far Eastern policy which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has outlined today and on other occasions are that, whereas, in the past, we have considered it the proper policy to pursue, we now have to realise that it is the only conceivable policy to pursue.
In the world of the hydrogen bomb any attempt by this country to follow what has been the Far Eastern policy to which the American Administration has sometimes lent its support, and which the more extreme sections of the American Congress and the American Press have constantly supported—the policy of attempting forcibly to reverse the Chinese revolution and overthrow the present Government in China—becomes something which no British Government can even contemplate. We need no longer argue whether such a policy is right or wrong: it is simply out of the question.
The visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to America was worth while for it does seem to have impressed this fact upon the imagination and intelligence of the American public. It was worth while if only it made the Americans realise the simple fact that no British Government, whatever its political com-


plexion, will contemplate war in the Far East. And if we do not contemplate war we must make peace. The American Government seems quite unwilling to face that alternative.
I am glad to notice that America has reversed her policy of virtually boycotting the Geneva Conference. But it is quite obvious that she is totally unwilling to take that series of steps—of which a negotiated settlement in Indo-China is only one; the inclusion of China in United Nations being another—which would indicate that she has a sane Far Eastern policy. It may be that for the time being the United States can afford to have no policy in the Far East but this country certainly cannot. We must have a policy. As a nation, we cannot afford to refuse to put forward a sane and reasonable policy, such as outlined by my right hon. Friend on this and other occasions, simply because it will effect—as, of course, it will—certain American susceptibilities.
We must have a negotiated settlement in Indo-China. We cannot allow the prejudices—and they are prejudices—of the United States Government to prevent that. Behind that, as my right hon. Friend said, there looms all the time the question of the admission of China to the United Nations. That has become the symbol of the acceptance by the free world generally of the Chinese revolution as a fait accompli. Whether we like it or not is totally irrelevant. It is something which there is no possibility of attempting to alter by force. It does not mean that there may not be acts of Chinese aggression, or that we should not take the best steps we can to control or limit those acts. It does mean a reversal of the present policy of the free world generally, and America in particular, in regard to China.
That, to us, is the nub of the issue; the crux of the problem. We were, therefore, profoundly disturbed by what the Prime Minister said two days ago about the seating of China. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) on the subject. As that right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, those words were spoken in the middle of the Korean war when Chinese armies were actually fighting in the field.
Circumstances are different today. An armistice has been concluded in Korea. If we are told that we cannot advocate the seating of China in the Security Council until there has been a full peace settlement in Korea, that may put the matter off to the Greek Kalends, because how can we possibly think that there is a chance of an immediate peace settlement in Korea except on terms quite unacceptable to us? That, therefore, is the last thing we want. After all, there has not been a general peace settlement in Germany so far and we shall be very lucky if that comes about within the next few years. Therefore, to put it on Korea seems to us the very last thing that we should do.
We notice a falling back in the policy of the Government in this matter. About 10 days ago the Minister of State made an excellent speech at Bridgwater, in which he put forward very well indeed, if I may say so, the reasons why Her Majesty's Government support the principle of the seating of China in the Security Council and in the United Nations. Since then, however, the Prime Minister has made a statement in which he recedes very much from that. He repeated it this afternoon. He said that he had now come to the conclusion that this is not the time to advocate that. What has changed between the time of the speech of the Minister of State and the speech of the Prime Minister today? How can we resist the impression that all that has changed is the outbreak of Senator Knowland in the United States Senate, and other expressions of Congressional opinion, which, the Prime Minister told us, astounded him when they were made?
It is really ignominious for this country to recede from a position which we all, irrespective of party, know to be right, and which a responsible British Minister has only the week before put forward, simply because of an outbreak of emotion in the United States. Of course, we cannot impose the membership of the present Government of China on the United Nations. We do not control the United Nations. But is there any reason why we should not adhere to a policy put forward so recently by the Minister of State at Bridgwater, stating it steadfastly but moderately, and standing by it.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he will agree that I never said that the moment had now come for the seating of China.

Mr. Strachey: No, I am not suggesting that the Minister of State did say that, but I could not possibly help getting the impression from both the Prime Minister's statements that he now thinks it untimely to advocate that China should be seated in the United Nations.
What we should do in September, I readily admit, must be partly governed by what happens at Geneva. Obviously, if a satisfactory settlement is reached at Geneva on Indo-China, and if the Chinese Government shows itself reasonable and flexible in these matters, that is bound to affect our position. If the Chinese Government shows itself the reverse, that, equally, is bound to affect our position. I would entirely agree that how our representative should cast his vote, whether he should abstain from voting, or take an active part in pushing for China to be seated, depends on such factors. There must be that kind of give and take in diplomacy. I do believe, however, that now, and in September and thereafter we should not recede from the position put forward by successive British Governments—and as lately as the Bridgwater speech of the right hon. Gentleman—that it is really a necessity for the world that the Chinese Republic should take her place in the United Nations.
That will cause great American irritation, but it has caused great American irritation before and if we go on saying it quietly and calmly they will gradually get used to it. If, on the other hand, as I am sorry to say I think he has, the Prime Minister recedes from that position then, of course, the most extreme section of American opinion will think they have only to have an outbreak to make the British Government drop what it knows to be the right policy. I very much hope that the Minister of State, or whoever replies for the Government at the end of this debate, will be able to reassure us on this matter.
Just as the seating of the Chinese Government on the Security Council lies behind the Indo-China settlement, so behind all this lies the broad issue of peaceful co-existence which the Prime

Minister rightly stressed in his peroration. He was claiming, as I think he could claim, that it was very important that the President paid his tribute to that principle—that President Eisenhower said that he was a supporter of peaceful coexistence. At the same time, peaceful co-existence has its own logic.
It is a logic which to me does not seem compatible with American policy in the Far East, as put forward by the Congressional leaders and, above all, by Senator Knowland. That is surely why my right hon. Friend had to do what he did this afternoon—to say, so quietly, but so firmly, that we could not possibly support such a policy because, to return in my final words to the theme on which I started, in the age of the hydrogen bomb the alternative to peaceful co-existence is not victory or defeat in war—it is annihilation. But it is not annihilation more for this country than for others. Every other country is almost as vulnerable as we are today. That is the overwhelming reason why a policy of peaceful co-existence, involving the logic of a coherent peace policy is the only course which any British Government can follow today.
We all owe the Prime Minister a debt of gratitude, for he is one of the first people—one of the first national leaders—to realise what it means to live in the world of the hydrogen bomb. He has a great imagination, especially in military matters, and he has realised the necessity for a reassessment of our defence policy and, consequently, of all our other policies. In due course the hydrogen bomb will necessitate a reassessment of the policies of all other countries, too. I believe that this country has a great opportunity to show what is and what is not possible in the new and formidable world in which we live.

5.31 p.m.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) in what he has been saying about China, because when I hear these pleas put up for the inclusion of China in the world councils it seems to me that far the easier way to get China in would be if the world councils had rather different names. The Chinese Government in the United Nations organisation is rather incongruous, but if the word were "universal"


instead of "united" it would be far easier. To put that country on to the Security Council seems more far-fetched still. It would be better to call it the Insecurity Council if China had the right of entry there.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that Soviet Russia is a member of both bodies.

Captain Waterhouse: She got in at the door early, when she had not fully disclosed her hand. All sorts of people get into all sorts of clubs before they are sufficiently known to the other members.
It is to the subject on which I feel very strongly that I want to devote my remarks this afternoon. On 22nd March the Foreign Secretary told us that negotiations with the Egyptian Government had been suspended. He gave the reason for it that the outrages had become so many and so frequent that it was no longer within our dignity to continue to negotiate. I must say that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State ought to have made a statement to this House when, in due course, it was decided that the time had come to reopen these negotiations. If the original statement, stating that we had suspended the negotiations, had not been made then things might have been different, but as we had that statement, then I think it would have been much more courteous to the House had he told us about their resumption.
The House today is in the usual difficulty about these negotiations, as, indeed, it must be about practically all treaty negotiations, in that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it is quite impossible for him, when starting negotiations, to disclose their terms. But he is very often saved the trouble, because if there is one thing which is fairly free in Cairo it is talk and information. I do not think it is very long after Sir Ralph Stevenson delivers a Note before the contents of it are reasonably and accurately reported in the Press.
We are told—and I think we must believe it—that the terms today are the evacuation of all our troops in a very short while; the handing over of the great base, on which such enormous importance has been placed, to the care of contractors; and an assurance that we

will be allowed re-entry to the base in the case of attack on Turkey or on other Arab countries. I do not know whether those are the terms, but it is very strongly reported that they are, and I think that we have to assume that they are a very close approximation to the terms.
Therefore, I would remind the House that when these negotiations were broken off there were other terms before the Egyptian Government and we were told that those terms were the minima. But they were a great deal more stringent than the proposals which are now being made. Under them we were to keep about 4,000 technicians at the base and these technicians must be in uniform. There was to be a gradual removal of the garrison, but there were to be conditions for reentry in the event of Turkey and other countries in the Far East being attacked.
We must ask the Government whether those were the correct terms, and, if so, what has altered the views of Her Majesty's Government. Why did they think that those terms were essential then and do not think that they are essential now? Looking further back to 12 to 18 months ago, we were led to understand that the terms then suggested were even more stringent.
Those terms were on offer in March, but negotiations were broken off because the Egyptians started a campaign of murder. The Egyptians said they were not responsible for it and could not control it. For some time it went on and then began to ease off, but it has not eased off completely. Crimes in Egypt fall into two categories. There are the crimes of the thieves, the pilferers and the robbers, and there are the crimes inspired by the Government to attain political ends. The first go on, and will always go on in Egypt. The second have been reduced to a point at which the British Foreign Secretary is able to say, "We should recommence our negotiations." We are doing that and we are offering better terms.
What is the moral of all this? The moral from the point of view of the Egyptians is, "Stop murdering, wait, and Britain will give you better terms. Do not bother to accept what is offered now. You must refrain from taking extreme measures and wait. You will find the terms are whittled down and you will be able to get practically anything you like."
But there are some other factors in the situation, too. Only a week ago Major Saleh Salem made a remarkable speech in which he said:
We cannot fight Palestine with the British lurking behind our backs.
I am quite sure that the Prime Minister was never a man to spoil sport. I do, not know whether he thought it was frightfully mean to be lurking behind the backs of the Egyptians and stopping them from their bit of sport in Palestine. [Laughter]. Seriously, it is a most remarkable time to reopen the negotiations when the Minister of Public Relations in Egypt makes a threat such as that.
We have the right to ask the Government whether they intend to hand over the base, as is reported. Are these stores to be handed to the Egyptians, or where are the stores and property to be put? May they use those stores against Palestine and, if they cannot, who is to stop them when all troops have been removed?
At present, there is pilfering on a large scale. Lorries drive in and take a lot of stuff. We have 47,000 troops watching that place, and when they all move there will only be 3,000, 5,000 or 10,000 contractors' men about the place. Who is to stop more lorries coming in and taking out ammunition and other valuable stores and delivering them to the barracks of the Egyptians for use against Palestine? These are questions on which we ought to be answered, but we cannot get an answer. But can we be assured that the Government have these points in mind, or must we judge by the past and take it for granted that if Egypt waits and pushes and does not murder, she will be able to get virtually any terms she likes?
The main reason that is given is the formation of a strategic reserve. Everybody in the House knows that we are stretched to the utmost. Everybody knows that it is vitally important that from some place or other we should be able to get a force which is under the hand of the general staff. The presence of a reserve is necessary for any defensive operation anywhere. But would we really get a very large reserve if we get out of Egypt altogether?
Eighty thousand men is the figure which is usually spoken of; 72,000 is, I

believe, a more correct figure. Out of this some 15,000 are African troops, and a further number is represented by the Air Force. The actual fighting soldiers on the job number something under 50,000. The suggestion is that we should have a garrison in Libya, a garrison in Cyprus—I am quoting from what the newspapers say—and, possibly, another garrison in Jordan. How much is to be left out of these 47,000 men when these various places are garrisoned? I do not believe that there would be appreciably more than a division left.
What about these new garrisons? Will we have an easy ride in Cyprus or in Libya? I am told that there is a tremendous movement of the Egyptian civil servant type of clerk into Libya, not that Libya likes him very much but he is about the only man in those parts who can read and write, so the Libyans must have him in their offices. These people are not very agreeably disposed towards us. Are not all the dangers and attacks to which we are subjected in the Canal Zone likely to be reflected in Transjordan? It is a serious point that must be given consideration.
It is said that there will be economy. Will there really be economy? The figure of £50 million has been mentioned in the Press as the cost of keeping, and therefore this potential saving on, a garrison in the Canal Zone. I venture to say that that is a rather dishonest figure. If those men are moved away, they still have to be equipped, fed and transported. They have still to be sent on leave, although, perhaps, not so far; but if they are moved to these new bases there must be a completely new set-up for them.
We propose to hand over £200 million worth of stores. I suppose that some of that has to be replaced or moved. I am perfectly certain that however hard the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries, he is extremely unlikely to get any economy out of this proposal in the first two or three years. Even over a long period the economy is likely to be very small indeed.
We need to look at this redeployment from another angle. It is said that our men are going to Cyprus, to Greece and, possibly, to Jordan. It has been suggested in the debate this afternoon, and in the Press, that the existence of the nuclear weapon has completely altered our strategy. I do not know that


Cyprus would be any more pleasant under a hydrogen bomb than would be the Canal Zone. We have heard of the disappearing atoll. There might be just another large hole in the sea—"That was Cyprus; that was the Middle East base." I do not think that that is a very strong argument.
All these places—this is perhaps my most important point, and I will deal with it at some length later—are to the north of the Suez Canal. The Canal alone is able to reinforce to the south and to the north. The Canal alone is able to draw its stores from the Mediterranean and through the Persian Gulf. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government, in making the proposals that I have read in the newspapers—because we have not been told what they are—have almost forgotten all about Africa. It seems to me too that the whole basis of our approach to this matter has been far too much on the strategy of war rather than on the strategy of peace. It is said that we are in a cold war, but if because we fear that a hot war will come we lose the cold war now, I do not believe that we are doing ourselves or our Commonwealth very much service.
I should like to know from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State what consultations have taken place over this move. The Prime Minister said today that there had been some consultations with the United States of America and that the United States had expressed an interest in this part of the world. It is very good of them to express such an interest considering the scores of millions of dollars that they draw from it in oil every year.
What has been happening about consultation with our Commonwealth countries? Has New Zealand been consulted? Has Australia been consulted recently? Last year, Mr. Casey wrote a fairly strong letter in "The Times" to the effect that Australia was watching the position of the Suez Canal with anxiety. Has South Africa been consulted?
I wonder whether this has ever occurred to the Minister of Defence. I wonder whether it has ever been suggested to any of these great Dominions, who are so vitally interested in this matter, that they might come and help,

that they might send a brigade for reinforcement or even, perhaps, take over the guardianship of the Canal. Then, we might get some real strategic reserve, for we all believe that to keep 47,000 troops there is wrong and that a far smaller force would meet the case satisfactorily. If these Commonwealth countries have not been asked for a contingent, I should like to know why, and I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will deal with this point when he replies to the debate and say why they have not been asked.
What does Turkey think about this proposal? Is she quite happy about our removing our troops from the Canal? What is Palestine saying about it? What does Pakistan say about it? Has her agreement been asked? When we are going to give up what we have believed to be one of the pillars on which our Commonwealth has rested for three-quarters of a century, we deserve and need to be told with precision just what steps have been taken to consult other members of the Commonwealth in order to ensure that our policy is generally agreed.
Those are very important matters, but they are as nothing in importance to the Sudan. The Sudan and the rest of Africa are by far the most important factor in this issue. We guaranteed the Sudan independence. We guaranteed to the Sudan freedom of choice. What freedom of choice have we secured for them? What freedom of choice do they get under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of February, 1953? They get wholesale bribery, fierce propaganda, misleading arguments, and great pressure.
Many of the inhabitants of the Southern Sudan are in about the same state as the people in these islands 2,000 years years ago. They are just as primitive as were the ancient Britons. They relied on our guidance. They looked to the Governor as almost a god. They looked to his inspectors when they went round as men whom they could trust. Suddenly, as this moment of crisis in their lives and in the life of their country, they have had that guidance taken away. There were elections taking place. We could not influence the elections. We say to the Sudanese, "Listen to what the Egyptians say. You must use your own judgment." But they have not got any


judgment. What is the result? It is that they have now been handed over to a Government elected by a very few thousand people who are to govern a population of about eight million. What has happened since the elections? Her Majesty's Government have agreed that one of the comparatively independent-minded Sudanese on the Governor's Council should be removed and replaced by a strong pro-Egyptian. It is true that in the first place, the matter came up for decision by the Sudanese Parliament, but we had to agree to it. Why did we agree to it?
Six weeks ago we were told that 23 or 24 senior officers of the Sudanese Defence Force were being summarily dismissed. They were given a month's notice, like a farm worker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I was expecting that outcry, and I made the remark for the reason that a farm worker can work just as well on this, that or any other farm. One can engage a farm worker to come in that way, or even a Member of Parliament for that matter. But the point is that these 23 men were the key men of the Sudanese Defence Force which had been one of the prides of the British Raj in that part of Africa. Some of them have gone already. All of them will be out within the next two or three months, and we have had to stand by and accept it.

Mr. Crossman: Is the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole policy of granting self-determination to the Sudan is wrong, that it was totally unfit to hold elections, and that we should now dishonour the pledge which we gave some years ago that it should be allowed to hold elections?

Captain Waterhouse: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will hear my next remark, which is that we stand four-square behind the independence which we promised. Whether we were wise or not to promise that independence is not the issue. We made the promise, and we have to stand by it. We have to see that it is a real chance and not a bogus chance of giving independence. What we are giving them today is a bogus chance. We are denying them the true chance. I submit that we cannot quit the Canal and leave the pro-independence party without any moral support at all in the Sudan. They have a right to look

to us to ensure that they will get the fair play which we promised them.
My only other remark under that head is to ask hon. Members to consider what will be the effect of this move on the rest of Africa. If we remove our Armed Forces, it will be said by all literate natives who read the newspapers, "These were the friends of Britain. Look where they are now. These people relied on the British word. Look where they are now." I believe that it will make the task of every Government throughout the great Continent of Africa infinitely more difficult.
What can be done? Those with whom we have been considering the matter still believe that it is possible to hold a small force in the Canal Zone. We realise that it is not a perfect arrangement, but we also realise that it must be of some use, for, otherwise, we should not have taken the prodigious trouble to arrive at the Agreement of 1936. It must be of some use to have a force there.
We realise the difficulty about the line of demarcation, but, after all, the Canal is supposed to be free for all trade. Are we to suppose that the Egyptian Government will break the International Convention concerning the freedom of the Canal?

Mr. Ellis Smith: What does the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen mean by a "small force"?

Captain Waterhouse: A force consisting of one or two brigades, but, obviously, it is not for me to try to lay down any figure at all. Such a force could be reinforced and it would have its access both to the north and the south. It is, indeed, something still to have a British force in a British garrison on a great strategic waterway.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that there is a difference between the effectiveness of a force which is there by the consent of the population and one which is there contrary to that consent. A brigade may be quite sufficient when it is there by consent, but when there is no consent, there has to be a very much larger force in order to maintain it. There is no alternative between a large force and no force.

Captain Waterhouse: Of course, if we could be there by consent, that would be infinitely more desirable. But because it is desirable to be there by consent, that does not mean that one should never be anywhere without consent. If one takes the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, why have an Army at all? If we could be there by consent, it would be a very great advantage, and I would not despair of being there by consent again if once we took a firm and clear line, and if once we let it be understood that we intended to stay and said, "Now, gentlemen, shout your heads off and do what you like. Here we stay. We will make ourselves as agreeable to you as we can, and will accommodate you in any way we can. If you do not like our great area for training, we will move it to the other side of the Canal. If you want financial help, we will do what we can. If you are in difficulty about your cotton, we will do everything possible to market it for you. We will deliver your water from the Nile." We can do a very great deal for the Egyptians, and I do not for one moment despair of coming to an agreement with them if once we make it clear that we are prepared to stick to our position.
I now wish to draw a most remarkable parallel—which hon. Members can check for themselves if they like—between the happenings of today and those of about 15 years ago when we gave up the Irish ports. Almost precisely the same arguments were then adduced. It was the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Neville Chamberlain who, like the hon. Member opposite, talked about friendliness. He said:
I must point out to the House that when the treaty was signed that provision was based on the assumption of a friendly Ireland, and that, if you had an unfriendly Ireland, the situation would be completely changed…
He went on:
After most careful consideration of all the circumstances, and after due consultation with the Chiefs of Staff, we came to the conclusion that a friendly Ireland was worth far more to us both in peace and in war…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1938; Vol. 335, c. 1076–77.]
How many thousands of merchant seamen lost their lives because of that decision? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, before he was Prime Minister, made a most powerful speech that I heard myself and that I dare say

other Members here heard, too. I should like to read the whole speech to the Committee, for I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would enjoy it much more than mine, but I shall content myself with quoting one or two parts. He started by apologising for striking a jarring note—and I and those working with me, can understand his feeling. He referred to the "broken" Treaty with Ireland. He said that he confessed he was wholly unprepared to read in the newspapers that we had abandoned all our contentions about repudiation of the Treaty, and, above all, our contentions about the strategic ports.
Then he said:
We are to give them up…to an Irish Government led by men—I do not want to use hard words—whose rise to power has been proportionate to the animosity with which they have acted against this country…and whose present position in power is based upon the violation of solemn Treaty engagements.
The words could not have been more appropriate then than they are today in respect of another country. My right hon. Friend went on:
In all my experience nothing has surprised me more than that I should have to stand here today and plead this argument against a National Government and the Conservative party. Well was it said that the 'vicissitudes of politics are inexhaustible'.
Then my right hon. Friend came to what I think is a very good passage:
We have been told that this was settled after consultation with the Chiefs of Staff. If it is true that they have recommended this course…then I must say that they are advising contrary to the whole weight of the expert opinion placed before the Government which made the Irish Free State Treaty. We do not know, of course, how the questions were put to these experts, and it is evident that in these matters politics and Defence are inextricably mingled together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1938: Vol. 335, c. 1099–1100.]
Those last words make me fearful about the present decision and about the value of the expert opinions that we have had placed before us. It is the duty of the Government to dictate policy, and it is the duty of the Chiefs of Staff to follow that policy. Once they have been given a clear line they have to adapt themselves wholeheartedly to it, just as civil servants adopt wholeheartedly policies put forward by any Minister. Thereafter, it is extremely hard to say what was initiated by the politicians and what was the real view of the soldiers.
I have kept the Committee long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—and I want to finish by summarising much of what I have said in the form of five brief points: first, that the policy should be dictated not by the needs of the Fighting Services, but by the needs of the country as a whole; that attention is directed too much to war and the strategy of war and too little to peace and the strategy of peace; that the interest and the welfare of the Sudan and all the rest of Africa appear to have been largely disregarded; that a far better plan is needed than the present proposals for what I call the lopsided redeployment which is to replace our position on the Canal; and that until such time as a far better plan is produced than we have yet seen Britain should retain on the Canal a force adequate to fulfil our responsibilities.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: It is evident that whatever information the Prime Minister gave upstairs in a Committee Room it was not information to satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester. South-East (Captain Waterhouse), because it seems to me that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still on the attack.

Mr. Percy Daises: On a point of order. Can you help us, Sir Rhys, who wish to take part in the debate, and who are back benchers and not Privy Councillors, for the debate seems to be run exclusively by Privy Councillors?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order.

Mr. John Hynd: Further to that point of order, Sir Rhys. It is a custom in the House to allow Privy Councillors priority in the calling of Members, but in view of the tremendous number of Privy Councillors in the Committee today, are they to have exclusive priority over other Members, because if so, it seems that the debate will be held only by them, and that back benchers will have no further interest in the debate?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for me to say. I am following what is the practice.

Mr. Hynd: How can the Committee call attention to this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee has had its attention called to it.

Mr. Bellenger: It is a little unfair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unfair?"]—that some of my hon. Friends who speak more often and at far greater length than I do should attempt to prevent me, also a back bencher, from stating my point of view today. It is very infrequently that I trouble the Committee, although I have been many years in the House, and I have the same rights as any other Member if I catch the eye of the Chair. I wish to speak only briefly. I shall not attempt to speak at any great length, but merely put one or two points, and ask the Government to consider and answer them.
I was on the point of saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East has put a point of view today that seems to me to bear a great resemblance to the point of view that the Prime Minister put on Indian independence many years ago. Everybody must realise now, not least the Prime Minister, that the opinion he put forward then is not tenable in the circumstances of today. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman insisted that we should keep troops in the Canal Zone, and seemed quite oblivious to the fact that the Middle East is not the same strategic area for Britain alone today as it was when the Treaty was signed in 1936.
If I understood the hint of the Prime Minister aright, America is prepared to take part in guaranteeing security arrangements in the Middle East. If so, it would be well worth while for this country, which for so long has borne the onerous burden of policing that strategic area, to withdraw its troops. It should be allowed to do so, and I hope that, as a result of such an agreement, it will be found possible to reduce the period of conscription.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's real frame of mind was exposed when he used the illustration of a month's notice to farm workers. His point of view is that of the old, out-moded idea of the overlord and the feudal system. The system in Egypt today was based on the feudal idea, the old notion of the conquest of people assumed to be ignorant and unable to look after themselves or to defend


themselves. Today the Egyptians are waking up to the fact that this is their country. Egyptians and others want to be masters in their own countries. Why should not they?
I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this area is so important in peace and it would be so important in war that we cannot simply walk out and take away our troops. Obviously there must be some negotiated settlement with Egypt. I view with alarm the possibility of a war between the Arab States and Palestine breaking out again if British troops are withdrawn; but does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that for that reason we should keep British troops in Egypt—merely to keep the peace between those peoples? It should not be solely our duty. We are no longer able to police the troubled areas of the world. World peace must be settled with world nations. America, who has now superseded us in many ways as a world nation, must play her part.

Captain Waterhouse: The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and my answer is that quite definitely one of the reasons it is desirable that we should maintain forces in the area is that it would have a quietening effect on the whole of the Middle East. That is not only our job, but what is everybody's job is nobody's job, and a war in that part of the world would be a disaster for us as well as for others.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not at all sure that the two brigades which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned would be sufficient to maintain peace in that area. If they would be sufficient why have we kept so many thousands of troops in the Canal Zone for so long? I have no more information than I presume the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has—namely, from the newspapers—but I do not think that it is worth while to refuse a settlement with Egypt merely on the question whether the 4,000 technicians left there to look after the place should be in uniform or not. If the Egyptians are prepared to accept the presence of such a large number, does it matter whether they wear uniform or civilian clothes? So far as that vast installation can be protected by 4,000 British technicians, it would be well worth while to get an agreement with

Egypt if the result is that we can move out our forces and also perhaps dispel some of the bitterness between the two countries.
There is only one point on which I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He complained of the lack of information from the Government, or the paucity of information from which we suffer. I listened on Monday to the Prime Minister making a statement, as he called it, which lasted for 40 minutes. We understood that it would be a statement on the results of his conference with President Eisenhower in America, but I think that most hon. Members will agree that a large part of the speech was concerned with his opinion on matters which have more or less already been settled.
There was mention of the E.D.C. That has been settled by Parliament. Hon. Members are well aware of the views of the Government on that matter. Why should the Prime Minister take advantage of that opportunity merely to expand his opinions? We want information. I imagine that the Committee wants some information from the Prime Minister about what practical results emerged from his conference with President Eisenhower. I recognise that it is not possible for the Prime Minister to give the Committee complete information, but here we are about to adjourn for the Summer Recess in a few days' time, and there are important matters of which we are still in ignorance and which may have to be decided while we are in recess.
For example, we are completely in the dark about what agreement, if any, was reached between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister on the question of regional defence in South-East Asia. To judge from what the Government have said, it would appear that the matter is held in abeyance until the result of the Geneva Conference is known. It is not a bad guess that that result must be reached by 20th July when the French Prime Minister has offered to resign if he has not reached agreement with Vietminh. If no agreement is reached, have the Government any plans? What will be our commitments in that area?
The Government have said that military staff conversations are taking place


between America and this country. That bears some resemblance to the conversations which took place earlier in the century between France and this country over Germany. We all know now that those conversations were only known in part to the Cabinet and that the country knew nothing about them. Eventually we came to war. I maintain that the House of Commons should be told a little more about the conclusions of the staff conversations on which, presumably, will be based any policy which the Government are able to formulate in co-operation with America for the defence of this area.
There is another feature on which the Prime Minister touched today. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, he made a most important statement in passing, as it were. He said that agreement had been reached 'between the United States and Great Britain over Germany, to the effect that if France does not ratify the Bonn Conventions and the E.D.C. Treaty, Germany would be granted her sovereignty. He did not place a time-limit on that, although we can form our own conclusions, because he mentioned that the French Parliament would be rising at the end of August.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) put a question to the Prime Minister which he was not able to answer. My hon. Friend asked whether, in the event of Germany being given her sovereignty under the Bonn Conventions, the Prime Minister could say what would be the legal position of Germany in relation to the formation of her own national defence forces. I am not sure what the answer is. I have a suspicion that there was something in the Bonn Conventions which prohibited Ger- many from recovering full sovereignty. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will answer the question.
The fact clearly emerges that if the E.D.C. Treaty is not ratified by France and if the Bonn Conventions are put into force by the three nations—the United States, ourselves and Germany—it follows that at some time Germany will be able to create some defence forces quite separate from any influences which we are able to bring to bear, as we should be able to do under the E.D.C. plan.
Although I have supported E.D.C. publicly in the House and outside now

for a long time, I think the Government should give us more precise information, before we rise for the Summer Recess,  to what will happen if France does not ratify. It is not an ultimatum to France. She must know by now—she has had such a lot said to her by different people of importance and lesser importance in both the countries—that at least that part of the world which signed these conventions, as France did, looks to her to implement what she has already put her hand to.
I have been listening in the House now for 19 years to a recital of events similar to those with which we are faced today. History has a habit of repeating itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East who is, as it were, the Prime Minister's ghost of the past, has today repeated what the Prime Minister said on previous occasions. Looking back on them, we can see how they were out-of-date almost before the present Prime Minister expressed the words which have been quoted today.
We have to be realistic in these times. This fact is clear to me, as it must be to the Service Ministers who know more about these things than many of us, that Britain is no longer in the position of being able to control events, to police areas and to maintain peace by herself or by her own troops and military efforts as she used to be. We can only do that in association with other countries. It is galling to have to associate with those who have been aggressors, but if it is possible to keep the peace by entering into negotiations with countries who have been aggressors, in the interests of our own people that effort will be well worth while.
I warn my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that they need not gloat so much over the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised the standard of revolt in the Tory Party. They will have to make up their minds at some time whether they will support his efforts to induce the Government to keep our troops in Egypt or whether they will pursue a more sane policy of trying to arrive at a peaceful conclusion by negotiations with Egypt, China and other nations involved in the troubles today.
I am clear as to what I prefer. I do not like to climb down, but surely two wars in which we have been engaged in


the last 25 years ought to have convinced us of the facts. The facts today are not the so-called little wars of years ago to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was referring when he spoke of past events in Egypt and elsewhere, when people looked up to the British sahib. Those days have gone for ever. Those two world wars have reduced our prestige to a certain extent and certainly they have lessened our influence in different parts of the world. In business, when one cannot get the bargain that is desired, there must be negotiation to see whether any bargain can be obtained at all. The same applies in this case. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is able to persuade his Government to accept his point of view, it would be detrimental to British interests and, in the long run, it would be detrimental to peace.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely into all the points of his speech, because there are a large number of other Members who wish to speak. I shall confine my remarks, therefore, to the Suez issue. I must confess from the outset that I approach this problem from a slightly different angle from that of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), though I fully sympathise with the emotion with which he put his case.
We must look at the problem of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations against a background of our heavy defence commitments in the rest of the world, under N.A.T.O. in Europe, in Kenya, in Malaya, in Korea and in South-East Asia where, for all we know, there may be a big question mark before long. Against that background we have to assess the value of having the whole of our strategic reserve numbering 80,000 men locked up in the Canal Zone.
The troops there are not really looking after the base, which is disintegrating monthly before their eyes. They are not guarding the Canal, which everybody knows could be sabotaged at any minute if the Egyptians liked to do so—though they would not be so foolish. They have no amenities, and few are with their

wives and families. The lucky ones are doing guard duty one night in three, the unlucky ones, one night in two. They are doing no training. All they are doing is to guard each other, and I do not think that is a very edifying spectacle. This cannot be the right way, in my view, to employ the bulk of our strategic reserve, though this may be a matter of opinion. However, what I am about to say now will, I think, be endorsed by all the Committee, namely, that no other troops in the world could show such discipline and restraint in the face of such provocation as the British troops in the Canal Zone have shown month in and month out, over the last two or three years.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I say a word or two about the base itself, which is the biggest base in the world. The trouble is that it was not sited tactically against guerrilla warfare or sabotage. It just spread, like emptying a bottle of ink on to blotting paper. It grew after the last war in the life of the late Government—I make no particular party point about that.
Into this base was poured the backlog from Palestine, East Africa, India and all over the place. The biggest single dump is Tel-el-Kebir, which contains the heaviest and most valuable equipment, 80 miles from Suez, 90 miles from Port Said, 35 miles from Ismailia. It has a barbed wire perimeter of 17½ miles. It is broken into regularly. It is guarded by one brigade and, even if it were guarded by one division, it would still be broken into because there is no method of stopping it. Every vehicle that comes into Tel-el-Kebir and every vehicle that goes out has to be escorted and convoyed. The value of the base is greatly diminished by the fact that we are not at the moment able to employ any local labour. Indeed, if these circumstances were translated back to 1940; in other words, if there had been a hostile civil population then, we could not have mounted the offensive in the Western desert.
If the C.I.G.S. or the N.A.T.O. Chiefs of Staff were to say that the present base was indispensable for the defence of the free world, I agree that it would have to be maintained no matter what the Egyptians thought about it or what was the cost in men, money or materials, but in that event Britain could not con-


ceivably carry the burden alone. However, to the best of my knowledge they have not said so. They have said that a base in that part of the world is desirable but not absolutely essential, and largely useless without local labour available.
As the Prime Minister stated, the entry of Turkey into N.A.T.O. has altered the strategic needs, and with the advent of the atomic and hydrogen bomb it becomes highly questionable, even with a base in that area, whether we really want all our eggs in one basket. I think that there is an overwhelming argument for dispersal. I would also have thought that in these circumstances there was an overwhelming argument for trying to get agreement with the Egyptians by which certain features and certain installations in the base were maintained on something like a care-and-maintenance basis: and that we should have the right to reoccupy these installations and that portion of the base considered necessary, in the event of a threat to the Middle East. So far as I know, the Pakistanis, Iraqis, Turks and Jordanians and most of the other Middle East countries, are in agreement about this objective.

Mr. Julian Amery: How much faith can we put in a Government which is already in breach of three treaties?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am coming to that point. The other point which I want to stress to the Committee is that to maintain a base without Egyptian agreement means, at best, a civil population which is unfriendly and, at worst, a civil population which is actively hostile, and this inevitably results in locking up a disproportionate number of troops to look after the installations, and to look after each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has just asked how we can negotiate with a Government which is already in breach of three treaties. I agree that the attitude and behaviour of the present Egyptian Government in respect of the Sudan has been disgraceful. I think, however, that we have to face facts. Unless we do not want any negotiations at all with any Egyptian Government, we have no alternative but to negotiate with the present one. It is a fact that Colonel Nasser is now in control. For how long, I do not know. But

I know that he is very anxious to get an agreement. I think that if he got an agreement with us, there might be a chance—I would not put it higher than that—of a reasonably stable Government in Egypt for some time to come. If we do not want to negotiate with Colonel Nasser, with whom do we negotiate? The alternative might well be chaos.
Chaos in Cairo might start with anti-British riots and end with anti-European riots and the whole place might well go up in flames. The unfortunate troops in the Canal Zone would have to do a rescue operation, which would be extremely unpleasant, a semi-military, semi-police operation on a very large scale. We could not stand by and do nothing if the lives of a large number of British subjects, including Cypriots and Maltese, were in danger. We should have to go in to Cairo and Alexandria to rescue them; and I do not know what the next move would then be.
May I say a word about the Egyptian Government's attitude? When Colonel Nasser says that he wants agreement with us, I think that he himself has to fulfil certain conditions. In the first place, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East has said, there must be a cessation of deliberately-planned, murderous attacks on British troops in the Canal Zone. These must stop.
Secondly, where there is merely spontaneous banditry and robbery with violence there must be better co-operation between the Egyptian police and the British military authorities. It is a well-known fact, as anyone who has been to the Canal Zone will confirm, that Egyptian police co-operation with the British military authorities is turned on and off like a bath tap. It is good one week and non-existent the next. At any given moment, the Egyptian police, if they so wished, could arrest almost all the criminals known to be lurking in villages in the Canal Zone. Thirdly, the nauseating flow of anti-British propaganda which now emanates from the State-controlled radio station at Cairo must come to an end.
To sum up, I think that there are three courses open to us in our relations with Egypt. First, we can redeploy our force with an agreement, if we can get one;


secondly, we can redeploy our force without an agreement, though if we redeploy without an agreement, we have to face the fact that this will entail heavy commitments in terms of guard duties while we do so. In addition EX million would have to be spent on urgent maintenance work, on certain installations at the base until alternative plans for redeployment were completed.
The third alternative is to continue as we are at present, which means, in fact, asking 80,000 troops to carry out a police operation in an enormous area without giving them any of the powers which a police force would normally have. Of these three alternatives, I infinitely prefer the first, provided that we can get a good agreement.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East thinks there is a fourth alternative. He said that he would like to reduce the 80,000 troops to a brigade or two. I do not think that is a practical proposition. I will tell him why. We have to face the fact that there is not the slightest chance of any Egyptian Government agreeing to our keeping any fighting troops in the Canal Zone. That may be regrettable, unwise or short-sighted, but it is a fact, and one has to face up to it. Those who wish to keep a certain number of fighting troops in the Canal Zone have to face the issue that these troops will be there without agreement. They will, therefore, be living among a hostile civil population, and incidents will increase accordingly. There will be more hand-made bombs, more sniping, and more guard duties will be necessary. Nor do I know what these 10,000 troops would be doing. They would not be guarding the Canal and they would not be guarding the base. I do not think that the alternative of reducing the garrison to 10,000 is a practical proposition at all.
In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, whose attitude I fully understand but do not agree with—those of my hon. Friends who do not like the idea of negotiating with the Egyptians and who do not wish us to leave no fighting troops in the Canal Zone—not only to face the alternatives of not negotiating, but to face the full implications of those alternatives.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daises: I do not intend to take up much time on the question of Egypt, not because I think the problem unimportant, but because I think it would have been better and in the interests of the Committee if the problem of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations had been separated from the general question of foreign affairs and we had had a separate debate upon it. What I propose to do is to get back to what I think are the essentials underlying the major question which we are discussing this afternoon, and if I can—and I say this, I hope, without any sense of presumption—to try to restore some sense of perspective in regard to the major problems with which we are faced.
I may say at the outset that there will be hon. Members of the Committee who will disagree violently with what I shall say, including some hon. Members on my own side of the Committee, but I want also to say this. There was a time, in the early and late '30s, when there was growing up in this country an atmosphere in which one could not say anything critical about Hitler in case we provoked him, and therefore I utter this warning before I commence what I want to say.
Listening to some of the speeches which have been made today, as well as noting some of those made in the country, the idea seems to be abroad that the major offender in the situation which we face in the world today is America. I do not accept that. Let me say at once where I stand. I believe that only with the closest understanding between ourselves and the United States and the joint deployment of our power are we likely to maintain the peace of the world. I hope we are not going to revert to the atmosphere of the '30s and those loose phrases and pious hopes of which even my own party was guilty in regard to the League of Nations. I respect the United Nations, and I work for it, as I hope every other hon. Member does, but we are really fooling ourselves if we do not recognise quite clearly that policy is determined by power or potential power, and to divorce ourselves from the United States would not only be major folly, but would ensure that a third world war would follow.
We have to take the world as it is, and it is a nasty, dangerous world. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member


for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) that, of course, we recognise that the hydrogen bomb is a menace and we recognise what it can do, but do not let us allow this menace so to cloud our political thinking that we cannot face the realities of other problems of which it is a part.
I am now about to indulge in some reiteration. I do not mind a little reiteration, and I think it is just as well that we should reiterate certain things. I remember that, on the only other occasion on which I made a speech on foreign policy, which was the occasion on which the Prime Minister made a speech to which I shall shortly refer, when I took a very definite line so far as America was concerned, I then said—and I now repeat—that if it had not been for the fact that President Roosevelt fell over backwards to appease the Russians, we would not have been in the position in which we are today in Europe.
Let us take another aspect of the matter. It is a fact that in this country we cut our armed forces from 5 million to short of 1 million between 1945 and 1948, while the United States of America cut their armed forces from 11½ million to just over 1¼ million. Russia retained forces of 4 million, and today has armed forces of 4¾ million, plus satellite troops of near enough another 2 million.
May I also say—and I do not say this in any desire to provoke hon. Members, but it is just as well that we should have plain speaking—that I do not accept what has happened in Russia as Socialism? I approach it from the basis of what has evolved out of the counter-revolution that started with the purges in Russia and is now State capitalism. I go further and say that what we are now seeing in the counter-revolutionary stage is a reversion to the old imperialist policies of Russia. We cannot run away from historical facts, and the fact that there has been a revolution, however far-reaching its effects, does not mean that the people have changed overnight, or that the policies which have dominated them for centuries have been changed.
I now wish to quote Lord Palmerston, who, speaking in the House of Commons in 1860, said this:
It has always been the policy of the Russian Government to extend its frontiers as far as the apathy and the timidity of neighbouring States would permit, but usually to halt and frequently recoil when confronted by determined opposition.

Hon. Members may say that, after all, that is arguable, but let us now go again into the field of quotation and bring out this one, so that it may be more widely read. This is Karl Marx himself, writing in 1867, and we must remember that he knew Russia well:
The policy of Russia is changeless. Its methods, its tactics and its manoeuvres may change, but the polar star of its policy—world domination—is a fixed star.
I make that as a present to those hon. Members who claim an association or even a nodding acquaintance with the philosophy of Marx. [Interruption.] May I take it a little further, in order that those hon. Gentlemen who smiled may also read and learn, and so understand the main factors behind Russian policy? There is basic strategy, and there are tactics. I do not believe for a moment that the fundamental and basic policy of Russia has changed one whit during the last 10 or 15 years. The basic policy is exactly the same. We may have a redeployment in tactics, but the object is still the same.
Let us look a little further at the prime factors in the shaping of Russian policy which Stalin carried out. There was the Cominform, then the rape of Czechoslovakia, the Berlin blockade and then—Korea. What was the result of that? The Marshall Plan, N.A.T.O., Western rearmament, the Yugoslav revolt, the Berlin airlift, and so on. The idea that there is something infallible and omniscient about Russian policy is a complete contravention of historical facts.
I repeat that I do not believe—and I say this emphatically and boldly—that the fundamental policy of Russia has shifted one inch. They believe, and it will be the determining factor in who eventually is to rule in Russia, that the Communist State is threatened by world capitalism, and that they must safeguard their frontiers wherever then can and try to stave off the inevitable war which they know will come.
That policy is still the same as far as Russia is concerned, and Lenin himself said:
The existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist States for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end, and, before that end comes, a series of frightful clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States will be inevitable.


The fundamental basis of Russian policy is the interpretation of that doctrine, which was promulgated by Lenin and carried through by Stalin.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Let us get this right. Was not Lenin quite right when he said that revolutionary Russia would be attacked?

Mr. Daines: I do not want to indulge in any argument about history with my hon. Friend, and I intend to resume what I have to say.
Let us go back to the question I put a moment ago. I say these things with the deepest conviction, as the Committee know. Let us take another policy into which we seem to be slipping, that the fundamental change in Russian policy came with the death of Stalin. I do not accept that at all. The fact of the matter was that the policy of change tactics was adopted before Stalin died. If we go back to an article he wrote in "Pravda" in October, 1952, we will see that he said that war would not come to Russia but that the imperial Powers would fight it out. Why was that article written? It was an indication not only of a change of tactics but also an indication of the fear propaganda that was being put abroad among the Russian people. Therefore, some measure of security had to be given to the Russian people. I repeat that the basic dogma and the basic position remain the same.
Let us take a look at East-West trade while we are on this subject of tactics. What is the solid substance behind it? Is it another question of tactics or the matter of a few brides who ought to have been with their husbands years ago, or a few delegations of business men or a peace conference? If there is one thing that hon. Members ought to understand by now, it is the contortion of that "double-think." When the Russian says democracy, he means exactly the opposite of what we mean. If he talks about a peace conference, he means exactly the opposite of what we mean. In fact, the "double-think" policy is so much at work that we cannot see what is clearly before our eyes.
May I say how much I welcome in the Washington statement—which I thought was the chief subject of our debate today—the statement by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States about

the enslaved peoples of Europe? I believe there can be no peace in Europe until the Czechs, the Poles, the Hungarians and even the Roumanians regain their national freedom and the right to run their lives in their own way.

Mr. Cahir Healy: And the Irish.

Mr. Daines: I think I have got enough on hand in putting my own point of view without engaging in Irish politics.
One of the most shameful things in the history of Europe was the way the Czechs were enslaved before the war by the Germans and then after the war how we allowed them to be enslaved by the Russians, through the stupidity of international politics or through the lack of assistance for them. I know that we cannot send armies to release that State, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) that because a murder has been committed that does not mean we should condone it and say it is right.
I say the Czechs have a right to their freedom, a right to a parliament if they want it, and the right to say their piece without fear of the slave camp and the whip of the party boss, as is operating in Czechoslovakia now. I believe it is realistic politics to say these things and to send a message of hope to the people of Central Europe, telling them that we are with them in spirit and that when the time comes, if it does come, we shall certainly try to help them.
I appreciate the logic of what has been said about the Baltic States, and I quite agree that as economic units and sovereign states it would be extremely difficult to resurrect them, but it was not so before the Russians took over. What has happened is the decimation of all their potential leaders. Their intellectuals have been murdered or spread across Siberia so that they cannot rise again. That is a policy or a philosophy which I do not condone. I accuse and I condemn. I admit it may be difficult to resurrect those States as we once knew them, but that does not mean we condone the crime that was done to them. We should certainly send a message to the small nucleus of Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians that their murder was one of the most shameful crimes committed in Europe.
I believe that what is behind these tactics is a policy which I am afraid is succeeding only too well, a splitting up of the West. Look how it is succeeding. We are even spending all the time in this debate quarrelling with the Americans instead of trying to understand what is happening in Russia. Let us contrast even our enormous economic strength with the tight integration of the Russian system. I do not know whether hon. Members follow closely the vast amount of authoritative books and factual information that is coming out about Russia. It is authoritative stuff which shows how the integrated system works. It tells how a few men at the centre order—at least they are efficient in that—and it is carried out right the way down.
Until we can evolve not only understanding between ourselves and the free nations of the world but build up machinery of control that can give us equality with the Russians, there cannot really be an easing of the tension and we will not get anything like a peaceful world. I think it would be false and untrue to everything in which we believe if we dodged these fundamental questions.
I go further and say that I believe that in trying to understand the Russian system we have got to try to understand its internal workings as well. Their position is quite simple. They believe—and they state it quite openly in their materialist philosophy—that the end justifies the means. What does it mean in actual practice? I ask the House to consider that in the light of the recent purges. In Russia it is a ruthless struggle for power, and if one loses, then one's life is forfeited. We do not know yet who is going to come out as leader in the present struggle. My personal view is that it is extremely doubtful whether it will be Malenkov, but the point I am making is simple. That is the way they live. It is a ruthless struggle for power without any law and without any morality behind it, and where one's life is forfeited if the game is lost.
We should be warned by these facts and by what has happened in the past. We should appreciate that Russia's international policy is exactly the same as its internal policy. I do not believe in the great illusion that by three men gathering round a table we are going to solve problems like the H-bomb. Let me be quite frank about this. The H-bomb cannot

be treated in isolation, and the only way in which it can be considered is when one considers also the political conditions in the world today. I can speak more freely as a back bencher than can members of my own front bench. Let us look at this problem broadly.
Can any hon. Member say—and I hope that no one is going to say that I am anti-American—that President Eisenhower could sit at a table and be in a position to speak authoritatively for the American people when there is the unresolved struggle between himself and the American Senate as to who shall control foreign policy? He can go as far as the Senate will allow him in the lunatic emotional atmosphere that already exists in the States, and no further.
Consider the Russian situation. Could anybody argue with any sense of authority that Malenkov is in a position to sit at the table in the same way that Stalin was? To suggest that he is in that position is unrealistic. Stalin could have done it; Malenkov cannot. The struggle for power is still going on inside Russia and has not yet been resolved.
There is another factor which we must take into the closest consideration in trying to understand the situation. I am terribly afraid of this steady slip in our public attitude on these great questions. How easy it is to criticise the Americans—so easy because the question arouses all the resentments in the hearts of so many hon. Members on both sides of the House. None of us likes to know that we are No. 3 today and not No. 1. There is that form of inverted jingoism which is so often seen. Of course, I do not like to see American soldiers in uniform in the streets of this country. The suggestion is sometimes put to working-class audiences of a great big capitalist bogey on the one side and a great big brotherly type on the other side trying to help them. Men and women who do that are men and women devoid of responsibility. They are creating the same kind of feeling as that which dragged us into the last war.
I hope I do not see this out of proportion; perhaps it is not as bad as I see it, but we see the same sort of undertones in the Beaverbrook Press as we had in the '30s—the same decrying of the United Nations, the same sort of half-suggestions that the Russians are


really not as they are, the same foolish idea of playing up to Beaverbrook's idiosyncrasies about his out-of-date sense of empire. They have to play it up and to play down the Americans. I see all these things repeating themselves again. We are deliberately fooling ourselves and landing ourselves in a false position.
It is not easy to say these things and to say them with a deep sense of responsibility, even as a humble back bencher. I know the old adage says, "History does not repeat itself." Pray God that is true.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I am sure the whole Committee listened with the greatest interest to the robust and remarkable speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Dames). I expected to hear these views on Anglo-American unity which, of course, I entirely and wholeheartedly endorse. Without Anglo-American unity there is no hope for the future peace of the world.
I very seldom intervene in a debate on foreign affairs and I do so this evening only because I feel it my duty and because I have something to say. In managing the affairs of a great nation it is essential to look a long way ahead, and the inevitable tendency of all Governments is always to look at the immediate future, the dangers of which naturally loom like black clouds in front of us.
I have a feeling that the Government's present foreign and defence policy is based largely on the assumption of a probable atomic war with Communism in the not-too-far-distant future. We have heard, however, the Prime Minister tell us that he hopes for peaceful co-existence. Whatever the future may hold for us, I am pretty sure of this: that we shall have a considerable period ahead of cold war or, if you like, cold peace. I believe that the sort of war for which we are preparing may not be the sort of war which we may face.
I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the world-wide fear of the consequences of the hydrogen bomb are likely to restrain war more than to cause it, and I suggest that the Communist plan in the near future will be one of constant pressure on the Western Powers, pushing first at one point and then another, in this

great struggle which, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North said, is partly ideological and partly imperial.
This conviction strengthens me in my opinion that what the Government are reported to be doing about Egypt is a mistake. I listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), which I am sure impressed the Committee very much with its sincerity and strength of argument. My right hon. and gallant Friend set out the reasons why many hon. Members of both sides of the Committee cannot but view the prospect with very great anxiety. All are agreed that it is desirable to reduce the number of troops in the occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. My right hon. and gallant Friend takes the view, which I share, that it is feasible to have a smaller garrison in the Suez Canal area. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) what would be the object of having such a garrison. It would be twofold; for one reason, it would be a bridgehead, and for another reason, it would help to maintain our prestige in Africa and the Middle East.
I quite understand the military attractions of removing our forces from the Canal Zone. First of all, the conditions there are disagreeable. Moreover, the military authorities are most anxious to add to our military reserves, and they think that if the Suez Canal Zone were evacuated, an additional division or perhaps even more would be available as a reserve. It would be a very comfortable thing for us to have some additional reserves.
I cannot doubt—and here hon. Members opposite may not agree with me—that the total withdrawal of fighting troops from Egypt will be taken all over the world as a sign of weakness, with the inevitable result of further pressure at every point. When the West withdraws, a vacuum is created, and into that vacuum Communism goes and will go in the future. There is no doubt about that. The Communists have fairly substantial and organised influence in the Egyptian Army today, especially in the artillery and in the armoured units. I do not think that can be challenged. They expect that there will be a steady disintegration of the present regime in Egypt, which they


would do their best to encourage, as soon as Colonel Nasser's Government has succeeded in its desire to make us abandon our Treaty rights in the Canal Zone; as soon as he has done his work for them, they will do with him what they like. This Communist progress may be slow but I am convinced that it will be steady.
It is true that this withdrawal would bring some temporary gain to our military reserves at home, which may give some comfort to the War Office—a gain both from the evacuation and from some possible advantages of the redeployment, although the expense of that redeployment will be great. But the weakness shown and the concession to pressure by terrorists is bound to lead to more pressure in other places, and especially in those places where our redeployment takes place, for example, in Cyprus and Libya. That is where the heat will be turned on. I have no doubt that the reserves gained—this division or a little more—will be much more than absorbed by the additional demands which will be made upon our forces by the pressures exerted everywhere else. That is bound to happen.
What will be the effect on our prestige, for example, throughout Africa? What will the position be in the Sudan, in East Africa, in West Africa and our Far Eastern possessions? What will be the feelings in Cyprus, in Israel, in the Persian Gulf? What will be the effect on our ability to guard our overseas interests? I do not know what the French and the Belgians will think about it with their African interests. Above all, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East asked, what will be the feelings of our fellow citizens in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, the three British Commonwealth countries who are most interested in this problem and to whom Commonwealth communications are as vital as they are to us? I should very much like to know what their feelings will be.
The Communists have had a victory in Indo-China, and whatever settlement is made we must face the fact that many millions more human beings will now be ringed behind the Iron Curtain. In connection with that, I should like to ask the Government a question and I hope that whoever replies to this debate will be good enough to consider it. On Monday

the Prime Minister spoke of a guarantee of any settlement which might be arrived at in Geneva and he spoke of getting the countries which participated in Geneva and perhaps some Asian countries also to under-write that agreement. I ask the Government whether this proposed guarantee means, first, that we should be pledged to fight any advance by the Communists beyond that agreed line, and second, whether we should be pledged to guarantee the domination of many more million human beings by the Communist regime. If it means that, I would doubt whether that is likely to commend itself to the conscience of the world.
The people of this country have been much moved by the great and gallant efforts by the Prime Minister to secure peace, and opinion all over the world has been much moved by it and by his great efforts to save the world from the destruction by hydrogen bombing which seems to loom ahead. All of us on all sides of the Committee wish him well in that. I know that he will forgive those who feel, nevertheless, that it is our duty to express our sincere doubts and anxieties on matters which concern us all so deeply.

7.13 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: One of the ironical consequences of the Prime Minister's visit to Washington is that he has been obviously told by the United States Government that he has to stop siding over Suez with his own band of diehard rebels, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), and help his own Foreign Secretary to conclude an agreement with Egypt which he could have obtained a long time ago.
That is one piece of American pressure to which I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has capitulated and in which he will have the support of this side of the Committee. If the Prime Minister had made it his only concession to United States pressure I might have been able to join with the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West in congratulating him on the results of the Washington talks, but, unfortunately, this was quite a minor capitulation compared with others that have been made.
In the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon we had a most unhappy retreat from the position which was taken by the Foreign Secretary in our last debate


on foreign affairs, and I am afraid that the post-Washington performance has been a sorry shadow of the pre-Washington promise. When the Foreign Secretary last addressed the House he had unanimous support for what he said. At least, I thought that it was unanimous until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) who now, apparently, has formed a little war party of his own.
The rest of us welcomed the wise words of the Foreign Secretary when he assured the House that in the view of Her Majesty's Government peaceful coexistence between Communist and non-Communist States was possible and that it had been his experience at Geneva that the Chinese had made
…a real contribution to peaceful co- existence.
I remember the great effect of his words when he said—and we hoped he was speaking to America, as well as to this House:
…negotiation in itself does not weaken us,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1954; c. 442–550.]
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman went to Washington with the unanimous blessing and encouragement of the House because we felt that there was urgent need for those words to be stated quite frankly to America by a friendly ally and that by stating them clearly he would help President Eisenhower to fight a battle against his own war party in his own Senate.
Now, in the Prime Minister's speech today and in the statement made on Monday, we have some idea of what has been achieved in Washington. We awaited the right hon. Gentleman's return with anxiety because we wanted to know whether "the lady of Riga" was still "sitting pretty" but unfortunately, as a result of what has happened since the Prime Minister left the United States and as a result of what he has said in the House of Commons, we are beginning to doubt that. The right hon. Gentleman had a great reception in the United States. We know that he has great personal charm. We can imagine how persuasive he would be and how effective in putting over his own personality.
That was all right while he was in America, but the moment he left howls broke out from the "ultimatum" school

in the United States and we began to get from President Eisenhower a series of qualifications and definitions of the words which we have been bandying about so happily, such as "peaceful co-existence." "The Times," paraphrasing President Eisenhower, reported him as saying that
He hoped peaceful co-existence would be possible because our side did not expect to be eliminated and it would be silly to suggest that the other side could be eliminated immediately.
Now we not only have that very strange definition of peaceful coexistence, not exactly an encouraging basis for negotiation between East and West, but we have also had President Eisenhower's statement on the question of the admission of China into the United Nations. I agree completely with everything that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his superb speech on how essential the admission of China is to the whole of the negotiations which are now going on for peace in the Far East. It is really alarming when President Eisenhower rules out all possibility of bringing the people of China into the United Nations, partly on the ground that China had "not shown a conciliatory attitude in Geneva." That is the direct opposite of what the Foreign Secretary told us in his last speech to the House, when he thanked the Chinese for the co-operation that he had had from them.
What have we had from the Washington talks? Who converted whom there? The "Manchester Guardian" said in a leading article yesterday that
Senator Knowland at present is setting the pace of American foreign policy.
Far from the hands of President Eisenhower having been strengthened by this visit to resist a policy quite unacceptable to this country, a policy, as enunciated by Senator Knowland, of disintegrating Communist China and not coexisting with it, unfortunately we had the victory of Senator Knowland's attitude over our Government Front Bench. We sent the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to America in an attempt to close this gap between the two points of view and this is the moment when the Prime Minister comes back and informs the House, in so many words, that he has completely capitulated on the basic issue of the entry of China to the United Nations.

Mr. Paget: Is that quite a fair representation of what has taken place? We have been told today that Bedell Smith is going back to Geneva. That means that the Americans are to be committed to the Geneva settlement. That is something real and concrete. Is not that worth a certain amount of verbal fodder for the dinosaurs?

Mrs. Castle: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend is challenging my interpretation of what the Prime Minister told us on China today. I very much hope that I have misinterpreted what the Prime Minister said. I believe, with the Leader of the Opposition, that this issue is part of our whole machinery of negotiation and the basis of negotiation. As I understood the Prime Minister—I shall be delighted to be corrected if I am wrong—he has retreated from previous British policy on this matter by saying that whatever China does at Geneva, whatever good will is shown in the negotiations over Indo-China, the British representative at the United Nations General Assembly this September will not support the admission of Communist China to the United Nations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady too much, but if she looks at what my right hon. Friend said earlier she will find that that is a complete misrepresentation.

Mrs. Castle: I am delighted to have that assurance. I hope it means that if we get a settlement in Indo-China the British representative in the General Assembly will support the admission of China to the United Nations.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I suggest that the hon. Lady reads what my right hon. Friend said, so that there may be no misunderstanding.

Mrs. Castle: I remember what the Prime Minister said. He accused the Leader of the Opposition of "whining" because he pressed for the admission of China and the Prime Minister said that this was not the time, if I remember his words. As the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out yesterday, we have had an armistice in Korea for a year and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we look like getting a settlement in Indo-China but none the less he said that this was not

the time to press for China's admission to the United Nations.
That is a most serious retreat from the policy we were conducting before the Washington talks. As the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out yesterday, the Americans too are retreating from the more moderate line they were taking a few months' ago, when Mr. Dulles was ready to consider taking a neutral attitude on this question and not forcing the position by using the veto. Now he has become more intransigent and what the Prime Minister tells us today is that Britain too has a new policy on China.
We on this side of the Committee believed that when open warfare stopped and when there was no fighting between China and the United Nations the case for her admission became absolutely overwhelming as part of the political settlement following an armistice. We have the armistice in Korea and if we get an agreed settlement in Indo-China, as we hope we shall, and then the British representative at the United Nations Assembly this September uses all his influence to stop the admission of China to the United Nations, I say that he will, in fact, be subscribing to the sort of attitude taken by Senator Knowland. If the conditions for China's admission are not fulfilled in those circumstances, when would they be fulfilled?
What are the other testimonies of good faith for which we ask? I warn the Government that the uncommitted nations of Asia, in those circumstances, will believe that Britain is subscribing to the attitude of America which was attacked by my right hon. Friend this afternoon—namely, the objection to China is not that she is an aggressor, but merely that she is a Communist nation. It is, therefore, a matter which we on this side of the Committee will watch very closely.
This House will not be in session when the United Nations meets. We shall not have any chance of checking up on the actions of our representatives. I hope that in this Committee this evening we shall have an assurance from the Government that if a peace is achieved in Indo-China which we consider reasonable and which we are prepared to guarantee, perhaps in company with China herself, Britain will take the line in the United Nations we have always accepted in this House.
It was a rather interesting comment on the Prime Minister's whole idea of leadership for peace that in the Washington talks the important question of China was, on his own admission, pushed in the background but the rearmament of Germany was in the foreground. I must say I have been very surprised at the behaviour of the Prime Minister towards France over this issue. It really is intolerable that the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all remember offering the French people joint citizenship with us in this country at the time when we were united in the fight against Hitler, should have lent himself to the bullying and blackmailing of France which has been going on in the last few months.
Pressures have been brought to bear on France which are quite intolerable as treatment of an ally of such long standing and with such great ties as she has with us. She has been threatened with unilateral action to rearm Germany without her approval; she has been threatened with the cutting off of aid; she has been lectured; she has been told she is really not a fit member of the Atlantic Community. I am delighted to see that France is now reasserting her leadership in world affairs, and I think that she deserves the full support of this House in doing so. She is giving a lead for peace in Indo-China which looks like being successful and in Europe France has for a long time given leadership in calling for the reconsideration of the European Defence Community.
This afternoon, we had rather thrown at us in a way in which it was difficult for us to digest, a most important statement by the Prime Minister on Germany. I listened to it very attentively and tried to understand what it meant. I have discussed it with hon. Friends, but no one understands quite what it means. I think it a pity that we had a three-quarters of an hour statement of platitudes on Monday to prepare us for this debate but the really concrete, new, fact which has revolutionised the situation was thrown into the speech of the Prime Minister today.
Here we have an entirely new situation on the question of German rearmament and we are all arguing as to exactly what the situation is. One fact emerged clearly from what the right hon. Gentleman said. That is that German rearmament has to

be postponed. I think that what the statement implied was that the United States Government and the British Government have at last awakened to the fact that all the bullying and blackmailing will not dragoon the French Assembly into ratifying E.D.C. this session.
The more we have bullied France, the more the Prime Minister has sent sycophantic telegrams to Dr. Adenauer, the more alarmed France has become. Over the months, as the argument has gone on, it has become clear—as some of us on this side of the Committee have been saying for a long time—that all attempts to impose E.D.C. on France have not brought France and Germany closer together, but have exacerbated their relationship, and, in fact, divided them. It is obvious that the Prime Minister would not have put to us this afternoon the alternatives to E.D.C. which are having to be considered were he not convinced that E.D.C. will not be ratified in the present Session of the French Assembly.
What does that mean? It is an extremely important statement, and one which merits a full-scale debate on its own, not mixed up with Suez, and the hydrogen bomb, and everything else. It means that in Europe we have a breathing space in which we can, and must, think out again our whole policy in relation to Germany. As I have said, the relationship between Germany and France has become more bitter with each week that has gone by, and the increasing intransigence of Dr. Adenauer has widened the breach. E.D.C. without Franco-German friendship is an empty shell, and many independent newspapers in Germany have recognised it more fully than have some hon. Members of this House. They were the ones who rebuked Dr. Adenauer for that last broadcast of his which had such an ominous ring about it, when he said that Germany's patience was beginning to run out.
If we have this stalemate over E.D.C., if the proposal now is that German sovereignty shall be restored as a separate concession—no longer linked with E.D.C. of which it was originally an integral part—then a new situation is created in which the policy of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee has to be reconsidered. My hon. Friends who have supported E.D.C. all this time, and who supported a German contribution to


Western defence—in the belief that E.D.C. would give them the safeguards they wanted—have a duty to think this out again. So has the National Executive of the Labour Party, because all our thinking is now based on false premises. The situation has changed, and it is intolerable that the House of Commons should rise for the Summer Recess with this new situation, pregnant with new developments which have never been accepted by this House, growing more and more prominent during the months of our absence.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he put his question to the Prime Minister, "Do you really propose, therefore, to restore sovereignty to the West German Government, with all the rights implicit in that—that she can have the power to rearm when she thinks fit?" Cannot we in this country decide to use this breathing space—given to us by the decision to postpone German rearmament while this new problem is thought over—to try to get a constructive alternative to German rearmament? Surely we all realise now, as I think that the French have always realised, that we cannot settle the German problem peacefully in Europe without agreement with Russia. Thanks to France, we have been jerked back from the precipice: from a situation which would divide Europe in such a dangerous way as to make a third world war almost inevitable.
From the Foreign Secretary we have had very fine words about the policy of peaceful co-existence with Communist States. He has been working for that policy in the Far East. When he went to Geneva he said that he was ready and determined to negotiate, and he secured a response from Molotov and from the Chinese. But the trouble is that we have never negotiated with the Russians about the German question. We have only to compare the Berlin Conference and the Geneva Conference to realise the truth of what I am saying; because neither the British nor the Americans went to the Berlin Conference with the intention of negotiating. We went to Berlin to prove that a settlement of the German question by agreement with the Russians was impossible. The Berlin Conference was a silencer for people like myself and some of my hon. Friends, who had always

pressed for a postponement of German rearmament until further talks had been held with Russia. So we were given talks, but talks on such a basis that they were bound to fail.
Naturally, they failed. In the same way, the Americans went to Geneva determined not to negotiate. The Americans went to Geneva with one purpose only, to save the face of a Government in France that was pro-E.D.C. As Nora Beloff said in the "Observer" the other day, the policy bore the results that were bound to happen. During the first weeks of the Conference, she pointed out, M. Bidault, the intransigent spokesman at that moment, never began to discuss the sort of terms on which peace was possible.
The Geneva Conference was saved by two things. One was the fall of the Laniel Government and the changed attitude of the Government of France towards a negotiated settlement. The second thing was the fact that the Foreign Secretary, to his eternal credit, worked like a beaver to keep open the door for negotiation. I pay that tribute to him. I believe that he wanted agreement; that he went there determined to get agreement and to prove that it was possible.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He has done his best.

Mrs. Castle: Why, in heaven's name, do not we try for the same thing in Europe? Why do not we bring to the settlement of the German problem the same passionate desire to achieve results that we exhibited at Geneva over the settlement of the Indio-China question? Everyone knows that the demand for a West German contribution to European defence was raised by the Americans in a moment of panic in Europe, when the Americans believed that, following the Korean war, the Russians would march into Europe, and that we had to have 12 divisions to "close the gap in the line. "No one believes that today. No one believes that even if there were the danger of Russia marching, 12 divisions would make a great difference, in the face of the hydrogen bomb.
This is no longer a policy of military realism. The Prime Minister has said in the House more than once in recent months that the international tension in Europe has lessened. He has himself suggested that there is now a breathing


space in which we might reconsider the whole possibility of a four-Power settlement. But surely, if we look at the political realities of Europe, and not merely at military expediency, one thing stands out clearly, that the most urgent need in Europe is not for 12 divisions to close the gap, but for a settlement of the problem of a divided Germany. Anyone who is working for peace in Europe must work for one thing first and foremost—the peaceful reunification of Germany.

Mr. Paget: Would the reunified Germany be able to arm?

Mrs. Castle: Well—[Laughter.]

Dr. H. Morgan: Give her a chance to answer.

Mrs. Castle: It is a little unfair to me that, in the middle of developing a policy, I should be interrupted just as I am coming to a point at which I could answer that clearly. I repeat the remark I have heard made in the House many times, "Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech in my own way."

Hon. Members: What is the answer?

Mrs. Castle: I shall make my own speech in my own way, whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not.
Everybody knows that at Berlin no serious attempt was made to get agreement with the Soviet Union over the reunification of Germany. The offer made to the Soviet Union was derisory. It is not only some of us on this side who think that and not only the German Social Democrats. So does Dr. Bruning, who spoke at Dusseldorf the other day. I advise hon. Members who think that this is a wild idea of mine to turn up the report in the "Manchester Guardian" of his speech last month. Dr. Bruning said that it was ludicrous for us to imagine that we could have Germany reunited by agreement with Russia if the reunited Germany was then to be incorporated in Western defence. Dr. Bruning, said:
No treaty partner can be expected to commit political suicide.
It is not only politicians who say that, either. I wonder how many hon. Members have read the book "Strategy in the West," by Air Marshal Sir John Slessor. The last chapter, which deals with air power and the problem of Europe, is

interesting. There a shrewd military mind is applied to the question and we are asked whether we really imagine that we can expect the Russians to accept the offer made at Berlin.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Perhaps I might help the hon. Lady with her facts. The offer which was made to the Russians at Berlin by the three allied Powers was that the all-German Government and Parliament, when set up by free elections, should be free to accept or reject E.D.C.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is not really as innocent as he pretends. He knows perfectly well that before the Berlin Conference Dr. Adenauer had already made it clear that West Germany would use that freedom to join the West. That was the political reality of the situation, which the Russians knew. Sir John Slessor said in his book that he found it hard to visualise the Russians accepting a situation of that kind, giving up one of their satellites with its national resources and seeing the N.A.T.O. forward line, reinforced by German units, move forward at one bound to the Oder-Neisse line.
Everybody knew that what we were really saying to the Russians at Berlin was, "Let us have free elections in Germany. Those elections will go our way. Then there will be an Adenauer Germany which will be free to come over to our side." Does anybody in the House really believe that the Russians could accept that? Any Russion negotiator who accepted terms like that ought to be liquidated.
We know that the alternative policy to agreement with the Russians, one which has always been at the back of Dr. Adenauer's mind—it may not be explicit and it may not be very clearly thought out, but it really is the alternative policy—is to frighten the Russians by a show of strength into evacuating Eastern Germany. Dr. Adenauer made that clear only the other day in an interview which he gave to one of his own supporting newspapers. It was fully reported in the "Manchester Guardian," in 11th July. Dr. Adenauer said that concessions and weaknesses were no use in dealing with the Soviet Union and that the West Germans should go ahead with their policy, put armed strength behind it and


frighten the Russians out of Eastern Europe. As Sir John Slessor pointed out, that is a very dangerous attitude to adopt. If anybody imagines that the Russians will scuttle out of Europe, he is being completely unrealistic. The more they are afraid, the more likely are the Russians to dig in their heels and stay.
The Geneva Conference has shown us one thing, that if we want peace in the world we should not aim at objectives which can be obtained only by war. We have recognised that in the Far East, but we refuse to recognise it in Europe. Surely the new situation with which we are now faced in Germany makes imperative the calling of another four-Power Conference on Germany to try to achieve the union of Germany without a threat to the military security of either side.
I have been asked whether the unified Germany should have the power to arm. No, certainly not.

Mr. Paget: How is it to be prevented?

Mrs. Castle: There are various ways. We find no difficulty when it comes to guaranteeing the status quo or guaranteeing frontiers in the Far East. Plenty of proposals are made in this House as to how both sides could agree on guarantees there. But the moment we seek to do the same thing in Europe we are told that it is impossible. I suggest that this is the only feasible policy left to this country to press. The alternative of restoring sovereignty to Germany without any safeguards and without the reassurances that we have been promised is completely unacceptable to our people.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Is the hon. Lady really suggesting that my constituents and her constituents should remain in Germany indefinitely in order to keep the Germans unarmed?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and my constituents are not likely to be pleased when told that Germany is to be given back her national sovereignty without safeguards of any kind.
We were told that the only reason why E.D.C. must be accepted was that it gave safeguards against German militarism which we should not otherwise get, but those safeguards have gone. If we get a divided Germany rearmed on both sides, with the nationalist spirit of Germany

pressing for reunion, the people of this country will feel very much less safe than they do now. If we have such a situation, we shall want more arms and not fewer in this country.
Every student of Germany knows that the unity of Germany is the key political issue in their country. No politician can survive there if he does not constantly give voice to the great national desire to reunite. The question that we have to face is on what basis and how Germany is to be reunited. We have been given no answer except one of force.

Mr. Nutting: Are free elections force?

Mrs. Castle: We now have a second chance of avoiding that catastrophe. I am very glad that we again have a breathing space. I ask the Government to be consistent in the principles which they claim to be applying in foreign policy. Let us try some negotiation in Europe, let us try peaceful coexistence, and let us remove this potent danger of war.

7.49 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: At the end of her speech the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) asked whether we could not try a little peaceful co-existence. All of us here would be delighted at the thought of peacefully co-existing with everybody else in the world if we could be quite sure that certain Powers would not exercise peaceful co-destruction instead of peaceful co-existence. The terrifying problem that we have to face today is to decide whether to trust and peacefully co-exist with those whom we consider to be our most dangerous potential enemies or whether permanently to live on the assumption that they would gnaw our vitals away quite gladly whatever they might be superficially pretending to the world at large.
When the hon. Lady seemed to deride Dr. Adenauer's choice—that if he was given a reunited Germany, free to do what it liked—he would go to the West—I say to her that during her speech this evening, at any rate, there were moments when I began to wonder whether she herself would join the West sooner or later or was permanently fixed in the East. I can think of no arguments adduced in this debate, which has ranged widely enough, which could have been more satisfactory to the Soviet Union than the arguments which the hon. Lady has been using.
I only hope that one day she realises that simply because some of us are not always able to believe everything that the Soviet Union says does not mean that we all want to go out and fight the Soviet Union. The last thing that anyone in the Committee wants to do is to engage in war, and every speech which has been made in this debate since the very restrained and well-balanced speech by the Leader of the Opposition has emphasised how appalling are the prospects of a world war.
I am not afraid, but am rather glad that I am one of those people who takes the view that the advent of the hydrogen bomb is perhaps the best deterrent of war that has yet existed in the history of mankind. It may well be that now no one will ever dare to launch war again, although I believe that not so many weeks ago we were terribly near it, for the very simple reason that not enough people today realise the consequences of unleashing hydrogen warfare.
The duty of all Governments throughout the world today is to make all their people better informed as to what the prospects of warfare on that scale would be. If any Government thereafter deliberately ran the risk of engaging its country in war, its life in office would be very short-lived. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) wants to say something, I will give way.

Mr. M. Follick: I was agreeing with what the hon. and gallant Member was saying, because I am of the opinion that the hydrogen bomb today is a mere toy compared with what we are likely to have in 25 years' time.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not suppose anybody would dispute that. At least, we can be agreed on something this evening.
However atrocious future wars may be, and however realistically we must face up to the possible consequences of precipitate action leading to world war, all of us must, at the same time, remember that the world has to carry on in the meantime; and it would be quite wrong for us to assume automatically that everything that the world does from now on must presuppose that hydrogen warfare is likely at any time. If that were so, the great house-building programme

which is going on today ought to be stopped at once and we ought to start burrowing underground. If we were to assume that hydrogen warfare was inevitable, a great many of the things that we are doing today would be completely nonsensical, and, furthermore, extremely dangerous, too. Therefore, we must have a balanced sense of proportion about the hydrogen bomb.
We have to realise that there will probably be bigger bombs as the years go by, but let us, in honest faith, behave as though there was not going to be a hydrogen war. Let us go on in the assumption that the majority of human beings in the world want to live peacefully with each other, and at the same time take what measures lie within our power to safeguard our people against all the eventualities that we can envisage. That seems to me to be the only way to approach these problems, and it is in that context that I wish particularly to address the Committee tonight, if only to explain to those who have not already quite comprehended it why I felt obliged to take the step that I took this morning.
It is never very easy for anybody to decide to dissociate himself in any way from those for whom he has had a great respect and affection. But when that sort of moment arrives, one has to be very clear in mind as to why one feels obliged to do it and as to the consequences that one would wish to flow from his action. So far as Her Majesty's Government today are concerned, I have no quarrel with them so far as domestic politics are concerned—I regard the achievements of this Government since they have been in power as truly magnificent; but where I am in considerable disagreement, not only with the Government but with many hon. Members who sit on this side, is in their approach to the foreign policy of this country, with particular emphasis upon where they stand in relation to the need for, or the abrogation of, national sovereignty.
In the first foreign affairs debate in this Parliament, I was so bold as to say to the Foreign Secretary that any Foreign Secretary of this country had one object above all others which he should keep paramount in mind; that was, to achieve for his country during his tenure of office the greatest possible measure of national sovereignty.
So far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, I well understand the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East and her hon. Friends being extremely concerned at the thought of any country, and particularly Germany, having national sovereignty. But so far as I am concerned and so far as, I believe, the Conservative Party historically is concerned, we believe that there is nothing to be ashamed of in this country having the greatest possible measure of national sovereignty, because we regard ourselves as a country which will not abuse that sovereignty and which will try to do its best by its own people and by the world.
We cannot at one and the same moment say that we believe in the increase or the maintenance of national sovereignty and at the same time say that we believe in pooling our national sovereignty in some such organisation as the United Nations. It is here that the Conservative Party in particular, and, I believe, the country at large, must do a great deal of thinking if it is to steer this country through in the future. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may very well disagree with me; I do not mind that at all. All that I beg the country as a whole to wake up to is that it cannot go on pursuing as its foreign policy a contradiction in terms. National sovereignty and the pooling of national sovereignty are a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Healy: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member cannot remain standing unless the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) gives way.

Major Legge-Bourke: How is it that, on the subject of Egypt, I should feel obliged to take the action I have? It is very simply that I believe that ever since the United Nations was formed this country in particular has been under immense pressure, particularly from the United States of America, to surrender more and more its national sovereignty. Let it be quite clearly understood that I have quite a number of friends among the Americans and that I regard America as one of the most remarkable countries that the world has ever known. It is of absolute and paramount importance that we in this country and the people of the

United States should remain in as close a liaison as possible. I will not dispute that for a moment.
Nevertheless, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Americans have as great a national sovereignty at present as any country. I would only ask them not to make us surrender what is left to us at the end of the Second World War.

Mr. George Thomas: What about Egypt's national sovereignty?

Major Legge-Bourke: I shall come to that in a moment. On this Egyptian issue it is very stupid of all of us and very stupid of the Americans to disguise the fact that Mr. Caffery in Cairo has not been at all helpful to British interests. We are merely putting our heads in the sand if we pretend that he has, or if we do not tell the Americans what we think. In fact, he has continually undermined our case for remaining in Egypt at all.
So far as the detailed proposals are concerned, I assure the Committee that I have no more information than other hon. Members have, or any more knowledge of the terms offered. Some of the Questions asked of the Prime Minister today may have been caused by the statement which I handed out to the Press, and particularly the passage which said:
Though my resignation has been precipitated by the Government decision to reopen negotiations with Egypt on terms which include the total evacuation of British troops from Egyptian territory, my disagreement with the present Conservative Party lies deeper than this.
That passage may have caused hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition side of the Committee, to think I possess information which they have not got. I said "terms which include the total evacuation of British troops from Egyptian territory." When I wrote that passage last night, I put "apparently include." It was only upon reading the report this morning in "The Times" that I left the word "apparently" out. Hon. Members who have been working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) will agree with me that when I read out this statement last night I had in it the word "apparently."
I may inadvertently have caused embarrassment to the Government on this


matter, in giving rise to the impression that they had disclosed the terms of the agreement, which they should not have done before they were known to Members of the House of Commons. I assure hon. Members that that has not happened. I take full responsibility for what I said in my statement issued to the Press.
I agree absolutely with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in regard to what we can learn of the proposals. The need for our leaving something in Egypt has been so well put by them that I do not propose to repeat it, but I should like to make observations about military opinion in matters of this kind.
One of the advantages—some hon. Members may think that it is one of the disadvantages—of having been a soldier before coming into this Chamber is that one realises only too well in this place that military considerations are not always the only ones to be taken into account. Hon. Members who were in the Regular Army just before the last war will remember all too well that whilst military opinion was quite firm on this, that or the other having to be done, the politicians did not seem to see matters quite that way. On the Egyptian issue it appears to me from every piece of information I have that the soldiers have carte blanche and that the politicians have not had a look in at all. The political consequences of the course proposed appear to have been completely overlooked. How has that come about, if that be so?
Probably it is very largely due to what usually happens. When a Government require to take a decision they call for the most expert opinion they can get. I suspect that the opinion which was given by the soldiers was as good as the soldiers could possibly make it. When soldiers give a good opinion they do so extremely well. I expect for that the opinion which the Government got of the political consequences they relied on the Middle East section of the Foreign Office. If my guess is anywhere right, that opinion was defeatist from beginning to end. Everything that has happened in the Middle East recently indicates that the Foreign Office, and especially its Middle East section, has been utterly defeatist about our retaining our position in the Arab world

and in Africa. I know that Ministers have to take responsibility for what their Departments do, and I have no doubt that the Government will rush to the defence of the Middle East section of the Foreign Office. I assure hon. Members that I shall not believe a word they say.
I have come to the conclusion that there are certain elements in the Foreign Office that honestly believe we have to abandon the whole of our interests in Africa. I respect their honest opinion but I cannot say that I share it. Whether there has been an arbiter, and whether it has been the Foreign Secretary himself, or the Prime Minister or the Cabinet as a whole I do not know—I think what has happened is that the military case has been allowed to predominate too much and that the political consequences of the proposed action have not been given nearly enough weight.
I shall detain the Committee but a very little longer. Before I sit down, I must say that every argument against our retaining any troops in Egypt could have been used just as forcefully before sending the B.E.F. to Europe in the Second World War. All the dangers of keeping troops in Egypt exist quite as much in Cyprus, and Libya, and in any other country in the Middle East. I have seen some of these countries and I have lived in some of them. One of the lessons taught me by actually living in Cyprus was that islands are no longer good places for things of vital importance. We are living in one here, and we have to face that fact, which it is very difficult to do. Why we have to go and build up a G.H.Q. in another island in the Middle East is quite beyond me.
Let no one forget the probable political consequences in Libya and in any of the Arab countries, and upon the Arab League. Let us and the country face the issue that if we go from Egypt our departure will be interpreted throughout the Arab world—whatever the Arabs may be saying to the Foreign Office—as a sign of weakness, as the result of Egyptian pressure and a result of terrorism. They will say, "You have only to frighten the British enough, and they will go." Right throughout the Middle East and the Levant that cry will gain weight.
We want to get our forces home. Some of my relations are serving there


now, and I know the conditions in which they are living. I also know how much we need a strategic reserve. That case is proved. The case which is not proved, is the case for our withdrawing completely from a place where we have treaty obligations to fulfil. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who interrupted me just now. As I say, we have treaty obligations to fulfil in Egypt, and if we go from Egypt there is no assurance that we shall be able to fulfil them any more. We have not been absolved from doing so.
Therefore, I say with the greatest regret that, much as I respect everything which the Government have done in their domestic policy, much as I respect the sincerity and experience of the Foreign Secretary, and much as I respect the Government as a whole for the assiduity with which they have applied themselves to the problems which faced them when they came to power, I do not think it would be honest for me to continue to support them when I disagree so fundamentally with them on this matter.
We have gone from Palestine—when in opposition I disagreed with the Front Bench on this—from Burma, from India, from the Sudan and now from Egypt. Where next are we going to be pushed out? Are we going to be pushed from Iraq and Cyprus? I think that far too much emphasis has been placed on Enosis. I believe that Communism is by far the greater danger. Are we going to be pushed from Libya? We have no more right to be in Libya than we have to be in Egypt. We are there by the Egyptian Government's agreement which they have torn up without having any right to do so. Any Government which, in the face of all that, is prepared to walk out of Egypt completely seems to me to be a Government which has no right whatever to call itself Conservative.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I do not propose to get myself caught up between the hammer and anvil of Tory Bevanism and the Administration, though I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has taken the course he has. It seems to me that if one wants to play a part in British politics, one must belong to either of the two parties. Therefore,

I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will quickly rejoin his party in which he can play an effective part, because he will not be able to play much of a part outside the two political parties.
Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle)—who, I see, has gone out for understandable reasons—I hope that the Government will continue to try to persuade the French to ratify the E.D.C. Agreement, because I see E.D.C. as only one facet of a many-sided diamond. I very much doubt whether Europe was ever more prosperous or united than in the days of the Roman Empire. I believe that today, not by force, as in the days of Caesar, but by the consent and willingness of all the contracting parties, we shall see a getting together once again into some sort of an economic and political unit such as existed in those days. I think that is a good thing, because, unless it happens, I do not believe that Europe will be able to exercise on world affairs that influence which is so desirable.
We see all around us—in the European Payments Union, in the European Committee for Economic Co-operation, in the Schuman Plan and in the Council of Europe—evidence of all these tentative steps towards a restoration of that political and economic unit which did so much for Europe in days gone by. As I say, I see E.D.C. as only one facet of a many-sided diamond, and as something that should be encouraged, and to which this Government should give every possible assistance.
It would be tragic if we again made the mistakes that led to the destruction of the Weimar Republic, of social democracy in Germany between the wars, and to the advent of Hitler. It would be tragic if we did not benefit from the lessons of that period, but that, I fear, is what will happen if we insist on treating the Germans as a nation of untouchables, if we fail to welcome them into the Western family of nations on terms of full, free and equal partnership. In that event, we shall get another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Germany, driven to despair by such treatment, will turn East, and then the greatest of all problems will face this nation and all the other free peoples of the world.
This is an extremely important subject, and one which really should not be the


football of party political warfare. I know that the ecstasy of irresponsibility is one of the cherished consolations of a British Opposition, and I think that it is especially dear to an Opposition within an Opposition, but this, I repeat, is a very important subject and one which we must all view with great concern.
I wish to talk about the question of Anglo-American relations, and I start off in the belief and with the profound conviction that the Anglo-American partnership must remain the bedrock of British foreign policy for as far ahead as one can see. I believe that the Anglo-American partnership is the one rock against which the tides of totalitarian tyranny beat in vain. If that partnership were ever sundered, I believe that Europe would become the graveyard of ethical values and an intellectual dust bowl.
None of the great issues of international relationships which are causing tension today can be looked at in isolation, because Western defence, Korea, Indo-China, Trieste and German unification are all cards out of the same pack, and whichever one of these problems is settled will have its effect on the remaining problems. Once or twice this afternoon, I thought that I detected the lyrics and music of Munich once more, and that caused me some alarm and despondency. I believe that the free world must be prepared to defend its boundaries, and that Britain no longer has the power decisively to influence the course of events except in association with others. But which others? The United Nations perhaps. But, within that organisation, the Anglo-American partnership.
Much has been said today about the desirability of admitting China to the United Nations. On that I do not differ, but, clearly, it is largely a question of timing and this is a matter of some delicacy. Britain has a very delicate rôle to fulfil. We have to maintain the Anglo-American partnership in all its frank and full understanding and harmony, and we have also to play a part in bringing China into U.N.O. That is an operation of very great delicacy indeed.
I would ask for patience in this matter. The real cause of the high emotional content that this issue carries in the

United States is the 140,000 casualties sustained by the Americans in Korea, including 30,000 dead. This is a fact. In America, 140,000 families have been struck with grief, and, in some cases, bereaved, for the part played by their sons, husbands and fathers not in protecting American interests but in a common enterprise designed to uphold the principle of collective security and the sanctity of international agreement.
The Americans cannot understand why they are being subjected to so much criticism just now when they say that the moment is not timely for the admission of China into the United Nations organisation. I wonder what our attitude would have been had we lost 140,000 men, had they lost a comparative handful, and had they been dictating to us the date at which those who were responsible for those casualties should be admitted to this international organisation? I wonder what the attitude of Britain would have been had the situation been reversed?

Mr. George Wigg: I have the deepest sympathy with the argument of my hon. Friend, but would he pause to think of the effect on France, who, in the First World War, time and time again lost 140,000 casualties in one day? Would he stop to think of what French opinion must be when the Americans who, thank goodness, had only 140,000 casualties altogether, are pressing them to rearm Germany?

Mr. Evans: I cannot travel all over the world, or I shall get into trouble with the Chair. I have little left to learn about the First World War, and the sacrifices France then made. I do not think that I should be sidetracked but, in all friendliness to my hon. Friend, I think I had better stick to my argument because this is perhaps the most important aspect of the debate.
I know that Mao Tse-tung is to the Americans what Franco is to Britain. I know that the very mention of the name Mao Tse-tung excites wrath and emotion amounting almost to hysteria—but does not the name of Franco do that in this country, and have not they much more reason to be hostile to Mao Tse-tung than we have to be hostile to Franco? When emotion flies in at the window logic bangs the front door. I


would, therefore, plead for patience with our American friends, because time and the whirligig of politics brings many strange and rapid changes.
Who would have thought that the great warmonger of 1951 would be today's great white hope of peace? Who would have thought that Chiang Kaishek—not so many years ago applauded for his resistance to Fascist aggression—would so soon be anathema to all? And who would have thought that those—some on these benches—who were the first to urge the carve-up of Czechoslovakia to placate Hitler would be today the most insistent on a democratic Germany being denied her full rights?
But all these things came to pass. Sophisticated Left-wing politicians and journalists in this country take these things in their stride—these somersaults of history present no problem at all. No surprise should be felt, however, if 160 million Americans, new to the game, need just a little more time. I would plead for a little patience with our friends, and for heaven's sake—and despite what the British "Mrs. TimeLife-Fortune-Luce," my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East, said—I hope that we shall not bring up in September the question of China's entering into U.N.O. It will not do. After all, we are politicians. We are "hard-boiled," we know the strength, we know the game—the ducking and diving just before an election.
In November, there is an American election of immense importance. Let nobody think that any American politician would have any chance of election if he said that he stood for China's admission to U.N.O. at this time. Good gracious me, he would not stand a dog's chance. The United States Senate and Congress is said to be reactionary. It is not for me to express an opinion, but if that is said—as it is—surely we should not do anything or say anything which reduces the chances of getting a more intelligent and less reactionary and more libertarian Senate and Congress. That seems to me to be good sense.
I know that Chiang Kai-shek is the "Bonny Prince Charlie" of American diplomacy—the king over the water—but Chiang Kai-shek is as dead as a doornail. There is nothing that President Eisenhower or Senator Knowland can do

—and, incidentally, Senator Knowland is a very honest man—and nothing that anybody else can do on the American Continent, here or anywhere else, to put Chiang Kai-shek back on his throne, but for the moment, as I have said, he is the Bonnie Prince Charlie of American diplomacy.
But the Americans are learning all the time, and, in the last resort, they are the best friends we have. Do not let us forget that since the war they have given away £16,000 million in aid of one kind or another to help to get this war-stricken world back on its feet. They are the most generous people in the world. There has never been anything of this kind before in history, so let us, therefore, be generous to them.
I know that at times they confuse me and make me a little angry; but do not let us be misled by the bellicose and sometimes conflicting statements of American Senators and Congressmen. It is true that diplomacy is a game for chess players—and professional chess players at that—rather than amateur blacksmiths; but in a democracy all kinds of people speak up. That is one of the features of democracy, and we must not be surprised by it because the same sort of thing happens here.
Let us not forget the ideological aspect of the struggle in which we are engaged. I am all for co-existence, but it remains to be seen how co-existence is interpreted on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Do not let us forget that E.D.C. and the American bases and N.A.T.O. and the hydrogen bomb are not the causes of international tension; they are the end product, the inevitable consequence of Stalin's post-war madman's dream of a new Communist Roman Empire, with himself as Caesar.
Now, they say, Stalin is dead. I do not know whether his policy is dead, nor does my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the former President of the Board of Trade, who wrote, in an article in the "Daily Herald," on Monday, that the ideological aspects of Soviet policy have not changed. It remains to be seen whether any other aspects of it have changed. I hope they have, because I am all in favour of coexistence. Quite clearly, half the world cannot wipe out the other half. We must learn to live together.
But do not let us forget, in the last resort, who are our friends—and the best friends we have are the Americans. Without American military and industrial strength and without those 140,000 casualties to which I referred, there would be no truce in Korea, the United Nations organisation would be dead, there would be no Geneva negotiations and there would be little hope of peace anywhere in the world. The plain fact is that without American strength there is little hope of maintaining the kind of world in which I want to live and which I want for those who will follow me.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I want to follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) in his appeal for Anglo-American understanding. I have been very shocked during the last 12 months by the rapid growth of facile criticism of America which is growing up in this country, and I believe that we have a very important job to do in breeding American and British understanding at least in these islands and throughout the Commonwealth. I therefore support the hon. Member for Wednesbury in what he said.
In reinforcing his plea, I want to refer to McCarthyism and the witch-hunt in America. Nobody in this country likes or approves of McCarthyism in America. Yet if we appreciate that the American people and ourselves are the bedrock of world peace, then I think that it is also our duty to try to understand McCarthyism on this side of the Atlantic. It is not quite as simple, in my view, as we like to think it is.
We have to remember that, although the United States is now the world's leader of Western democracy, it is also a nation of 140 million people, many of whom are first and second generation Americans, whose grandfathers or fathers came from Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe, including Russia. Therefore, when there are, as there have been, actual cases of subversion in America, each American looks at his opponent or competitor with the eyes of suspicion. He thinks: Does he owe his allegiance to his present country or does he still owe allegiance to the

country from which he came behind the Iron Curtain?
I think that we have to look at it in that way, and realise that the Americans are under much more temptation for witch-hunts than we are in our closely-knit community with 1,000 years of history behind us, where we look at things always on the basis that, whether it is a political opponent or a business opponent, at least his motives are sincere and British to the core. That position does not at this moment apply in America. That is why I was so interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). If there is to be any future for the Western world, we must remain in close and tight friendship with the United States.
May I reinforce the argument about China? Apart from the fact that America incurred 140,000 casualties in Korea, we must also remember that the United States Government official policy was to back Chiang Kai-shek, and poured money into China to support his regime against the advent of Communism. That means that the ordinary reaction of the United States to China, whether it is right or whether it is wrong—and we in this country think that it is wrong—is that the force they support has suffered a major reverse and has been thrown back on to the island of Formosa, in the same way as we were thrown back on to the island of Britain in 1940. Although it may seem to us a far-fetched view, many Americans still look upon Chiang Kai-shek as representing the properly-elected Government of China which has been driven out of the mainland on to the Island of Formosa.
Although we do not agree with this view—and I think that our view is right—we must accept it that that view is very strongly held by many millions of people in America. Time, I believe, will bring a change. We must give them time for that change to be brought about. Indeed when some say that China today should be immediately admitted to the United Nations, do they not realise that at this moment there is only an armistice in Korea and that the aggressors and murderers of hundreds of thousands of people in that peninsula are in a state of war, facing United Nations troops across the demarcation line, with no firm peace established in that country.
That is the nation which people say should be admitted to the United Nations. At the same time, today that nation is supplying, equipping and helping forces at war against France and Viet Nam in Indo-China. If and when the favourable result of a Korean peace treaty and a cease-fire in Indo-China comes out of the Geneva Conference—and let us be quite clear that it has not come out today, though it may come out tomorrow or next week—unless something towards the establishment of peace in Korea and Indo-China does come out of the Geneva Conference, then I say that those who have said that the Chinese have given a useful contribution are being rather optimistic.
Until that result does come out of the conference, in my view China is not a fit nation to be admitted to the United Nations at this time, particularly as we know that all hope of the defence of Western Europe comes from our remaining friends with America. If we look at the matter from the American point of view, there is no doubt that we shall come to the conclusion that patience is a virtue which should be observed by the British people in regard to this problem.
I now want to say a word or two on the question of Western Germany. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), who is not now in her place, made a most interesting, but in my view completely unbalanced, speech on the subject of Germany. She said, with regard to the conference that took place on Germany, that the Russians would not agree to a reunited Germany which was pledged to come over to the West. What does the hon. Lady really mean? Does she mean that a Germany in which the majority of the people live in Western Germany, who would, if given a free vote, vote for the establishment of a government favourable to the West, shall in any treaty be forbidden to form an alliance or association with the Western nations?
If that means anything at all, what the hon. Lady really means is that any negotiations with the Russians for the reunification of Germany shall be carried out on the basis that, once reunification is complete, the whole of Germany shall go into the Eastern zone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is the hon. Lady's serious argument.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Russian proposals at Berlin were that the armed forces should be withdrawn both from the East and West and free elections held in a united Germany.

Mr. Glover: I quite agree about the proposal, but the Adenauer Government in Western Germany, which is by far the largest part, have said they would come in with the West after Germany was reunited. That was the proposal which the Russians would not accept. We were prepared to take a chance, because we knew that we might get Germany into Western Europe, but the Russians were not prepared to take that chance, for that very reason. Therefore, in practice, it is their demand that the whole of Germany should be placed inside the Russian orbit.
From the point of view of German rearmament, I believe that the issue today is whether we are to have Western Germany rearming under the European Defence Community, or whether, during the next five years, Western Germany will be rearming in defiance of the European Defence Community. I am not certain that it is a real solution that Germany should come into E.D.C. I have my own fears, as everybody has, about German militarism, but we have to face the facts today, and the fact is that today we have two major world blocs, and if there is to be another war, that war will involve those two world blocs. We are not likely to get a war between Germany and France or between Italy and France. If war comes, it will be between the major blocs representing the two halves of the world—East and West.
In these conditions, I believe that the danger of Germany to world peace becomes very different from that which existed in 1914 or in 1939. It has always been the policy of British diplomacy to try to maintain the balance of power. Our balance of power in 1914 and 1939 meant that we should support France, but do not let us forget that in the 17th and 18th Centuries it meant that we should support Germany.
Today, to weight the scales on our side in this matter of the balance of power, it is essential in my view that we should keep Germany in the Western orbit. I am of the opinion that if we cannot get Germany into E.D.C., then the correct policy for the Western nations to follow is at the earliest opportunity to incorporate Germany into N.A.T.O. I believe that


by so doing we shall become a very much stronger bulwark in Europe in what is looked upon as the vital area, and if that vital area is stronger, then the danger to world peace is reduced.
If that is done in Europe, we shall be creating an area in the great periphery of defence which we look upon more or less as our centre of strength. That will mean that the Western nations can deal with South-East Asia and other trouble spots of the world on a very much firmer basis than they can at present.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Cahir Healy: As an Irish Member I intervene very briefly this evening to put the Irish point of view. We heard with great interest the speech of the Prime Minister today and read with equal interest the statement that he made the other day. Especially were we interested in paragraph 3 of the statement made by him and the President of the United States which reads:
We uphold the principles of self-government…and will readily strive through free elections supervised by the United Nations to ensure that they are conducted fairly.
Unless we can convince the world of our sincerity in matters of this kind at home, how can we expect it to believe in the bona fides of statements and undertakings that we make abroad?
This matter concerns us very much in Northern Ireland, and anything I intend to say this evening will be within the terms of paragraph 3. It is perfectly true that in Northern Ireland we have a franchise which is equal to the franchise here, or is supposed to be. But, believe it or not, to govern Northern Ireland we have three forms of franchise while one suffices for this great country. We have one for the Imperial Parliament, under which I am elected, we have one for the Northern Ireland Parliament which gives a majority to the Tory Party, and we have one for the local authorities which brings in the property holders, giving some gentlemen and ladies as many as six additional votes to their original one.
The statement goes on:
In the case of nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek their unity through free elections…
That applies particularly to Irish nation because nobody can contend that it has voted itself into partition. None of the

representatives of Northern Ireland in this House voted for the partition of Ireland. I therefore remind the Prime Minister, who made a statement on the subject yesterday, saying that he thought the question had been already decided, that it is not decided and it is not finished. So long as Ireland remains divided, the issue will always be very much unsettled.
I suppose I shall be reminded that we accepted partition in so far as we voted for two partition Parliaments. Since 1920 that has been true, but the Treaty was accepted under duress, and had it not been for the statement by Mr. Lloyd George of a resumption of terrible war, the delegates from the Dail would never have signed the 1920 Treaty. It can hardly be claimed, even in the House of Commons, that certain democratic principles ought to apply to nations abroad but ought not to be applied to nations at home. If that were so, it would merely show the agreement to be a shifty window-dressing performance, the device of two clever politicians rather than of statesmen.
The last time the will of the Irish people as a whole was ascertained was in 1919. The British Army was in occupation of the country and the election was held under rules that were framed in Parliament here. What was the result? The only issue that was put to the people was to ask whether they were in favour of a free Ireland or otherwise. The voting was 78 Members for and 23 Members against.
The minority consisted mainly of people from the north-east corner, now known as Northern Ireland, but two of the six counties showed large majorities for Irish unity and still show them. It was, unfortunately, not the wish of the majority of 70 or 80 per cent. that determined the issue, but it was the voice of the 20 per cent.: namely, the Northern Tories.
No minority in any country has a right to dictate and determine the policy of the majority. The county of Lancashire would be as well entitled to a Parliament of its own and to separation from the British nation as would Northern Ireland, because Lancashire has a far bigger population than the whole of Northern Ireland. When Mr. Lloyd George passed the 1920 Act, he actually


provided for an all-Ireland Parliament. He included as a temporary measure a Council of Ireland. I repeat that even the Ulster Unionists in this House of Commons refused to vote for the partition of the country.
We are, therefore, neither unreasonable nor unusual in making a request of this kind. We merely ask that the whole of the Irish people should be in a position to decide their own future. I remind those hon. Members here who have been talking this evening so much about America of the case in which a minority in the United States attempted to enforce its will upon the majority. That resulted in the war of 1861, which lasted until 1865, and was fought to assert the right of the majority.
Abraham Lincoln, on 18th February, 1861, in a very notable speech defended the nation against the coercion of the minority. Ireland has always been coerced by a privileged minority within its own borders and that position remains very much the same today. Benjamin Franklin said that if we did not stand together we should hang together. I think that most hon. Members believe in Anglo-American friendship, but there is a very strong feeling in the United States against linking up with this country, particularly in some of its Eastern policies.
A writer in the "Observer" on Sunday last said that relations between this country and America were now suffering the severest strain since the end of the war. The "New York Times," a newspaper which has been an advocate of this country, said on 11th July:
There is a deep split between the United States and Britain on how to deal with Communist China…The United States position is that Communist China must purge itself of the Korean aggression…Its refusal to conclude peace in Korea is not in the United States view a very good augury for peaceful intent.
We have also the views of Senator Knowland who, despite the way he spells his name. is an Irishman. He says:
On the day that Communist China is admitted to membership of the United Nations shall resign my majority leadership and devote my full efforts to terminating United States membership of that organisation.
I quote these things to show that the position of this country in relation to the United States is a very shaky one and

that we should do everything to cultivate the good graces of the one race there which, above all others, dominates the situation, namely, the Irish.
The Irish people have a very strong and important influence in the United States. I may be told that the Irish there are not as aggressive as they were in the days of Parnell. They may not be taking as active an interest in purely American political concerns as formerly, but they are the people in the main who strayed from the Democrats to the Republicans and made victory for that party certain last year. It was their 2 million votes which assured victory for the Republicans.
I know that many hon. Members are very much opposed to Senator McCarthy. I hardly hear a good word spoken about him, particularly from this side of the Committee. I know that hon. Members have been pressing President Eisenhower and the Press to put the closure on the Senator, but I suggest that if both the President and outside influence has failed to stop him it is because of the public belief that he is doing a job for the nation, however unpopular it may be. That is the reason why Eisenhower has not intervened and one of the greatest sources of the Senator's strength in America is the Irish feeling. That, largely, has been fostered in recent years by the dividing of the Irish nation against the will of the people.
If hon. Members think that the Irish are not as potent a force in America as they used to be, I would invite any of them to go to New York on St. Patrick's Day and witness one of the greatest processions of all time. The people in that procession are not all Irish Catholics and a great proportion are Irish Protestants. They also include people who differ on political matters, but they are united on one thing, the unity of their country. They march down Broadway bearing banners saying, "England, get out of Ireland," "We want a united and not a partitioned Ireland," and so on. The Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, on two or three occasions recently, has declared himself in favour of Irish unity. He is as much opposed to the partition of Ireland as any of us could possibly be.
For a long time the Prime Minister was in favour of Irish unity. I shall conclude


by quoting from a speech he made in 1912:
Whatever Ulster's right may be, she cannot stand in the way of the whole of Ireland…half a province cannot obstruct forever the reconcilement between the British and Irish democracies.

9.3 p.m.

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I have promised to be extremely brief and I think I can answer the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) in a very few words. He demanded free elections in accordance with the clause of the agreement come to in the United States between the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower. Will anyone in this Chamber contend that the elections of the 12 representatives of Northern Ireland here in this House are not free elections?

Mr. Healy: But not in Ireland.

Sir D. Savory: The boundaries were fixed by an independent boundary commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—consisting of civil servants and presided over by the Speaker of this House of Commons. Only a few weeks ago the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland inserted an advertisement in the newspapers asking anyone who had any suggestion to make for alteration of the boundaries to do so, but no letter, no demand, no request of any kind was received.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: What would be the use of it?

Sir D. Savory: Of the 12 representatives whom we have in this House nine are staunch Unionists—

Mr. Stokes: Shame.

Sir D. Savory: I admit that at the last Election we lost Belfast, West by 25 votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but we shall get it back at the next General Election. But the hon. Members for Antrim, North and South, were returned unopposed. Hon. Members were also returned unopposed for Derry and Armagh and we had overwhelming majorities in Belfast, East, Belfast, North and Belfast, South. In the only two constituencies where there was a slight nationalist majority, Mid-Ulster and the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the combined majorities

amounted to a little over 6,000. Compare that with the majority of 32,955 which I had in the contested election in South Antrim in February, 1950. Or compare it with the election in 1951 in North Down, where there was a majority of over 33,000.
Northern Ireland is, by overwhelming majorities, in favour of the existing Constitution, and when the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone talks about the Irish nation I would remind him that there are two Irish nations; the Irish nation in the North and the Irish nation in the South. In the North we are determined to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No power on earth will throw us into an alien Republic.
By their Ireland Act hon. Members opposite gave us, in Section 2, a wonderful charter. They have said, and the whole Labour Party is committed to it, that there shall be no change made in the Constitution of Northern Ireland without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. That is the pledge which the members of the Labour Party have given to us. We adhere to it, and we demand that we be left alone in our present position, which we shall maintain against all comers.

Mr. Healy: May I ask the hon. Member a question?

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member has had his opportunity. He asked to speak for seven minutes, but, in fact, spoke for 16.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) will forgive me if I do not follow them in their fascinating commentary on the Prime Minister's journey to Washington. I hope that the Suez rebels will forgive me if I do not spend very long on their explanation of their views. I would only say that we hope the Government will go forward with what they now propose and will make an early settlement with Egypt on terms which I am satisfied, if the Government sign them, the nation will approve.
The Government will have the great majority of hon. Members behind them;


almost every section of the Press; their military and diplomatic advisers, and, beyond any question, they will have the backing of the troops. It would be a travesty of democratic practice if a small minority of hon. Members could prevent the Government from doing what they have now concluded is clearly right. I would only ask that they should reaffirm their tripartite declaration, and make it plain that if Egypt were ever to attack Palestine, or anyone else, they would forthwith call on the members of the United Nations to resist aggression, as they did in Korea four years ago.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recalled earlier, the Prime Minister, at the end of his statement on Monday, spoke of what he called the fundamental and far-reaching conception of the peaceful co-existence of the Communist and non-Communist nations. He told us how glad he was that President Eisenhower had said that "the hope of the world lay in peaceful co-existence," adding the "warning that this doctrine must not lead to appeasement which compels any nation to submit to foreign domination."
Clearly, we all agree with that policy and with the proviso which the President made. It is only a restatement of an earlier pledge. Every member of the United Nations is pledged by the Charter to refrain in their international relations from the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. They are pledged to settle all their international disputes by peaceful means. That undertaking was the very foundation of the United Nations and the basic principle of its law. Unless it is faithfully upheld, the whole structure of the United Nations is bound to fall.
In 1945 the present Foreign Secretary said that the United Nations was humanity's last hope. It is my belief that the United States and Britain have been the main pillars of the United Nations from then till now. I want to begin by paying my tribute to the wisdom, the courage and the generosity of America's support of the United Nations since 1945: in Europe through the magnificent reconstruction work of U.N.R.R.A., largely on the territory of Russia and her allies; through O.E.E.C. and the vast material aid which was given; through

N.A.T.O., with General Eisenhower's personal leadership; in Asia through their spontaneous and instant resistance to aggression in Korea; through their work in getting Chiang Kai-shek's troops out of Burma in fulfilment of a United Nations Assembly Resolution; through their support of the United Nations Reconstruction Agency in Korea, which is already obtaining very notable results; through the United Nations Technical Assistance in under-developed countries, which is becoming one of the most hopeful parts of world policy today.
All that is not only admirable in itself; it is also absolutely vital to us, for loyal adherence to the Charter is the only possible long-term basis for Anglo-American co-operation. Nothing but the Charter could have brought the American people out of isolation. Nothing but the Charter could have made it possible to build up N.A.T.O., with America, Canada, Norway and Denmark all coming in. The old principle, "My ally, right or wrong," would have had—would still have—the effect of bringing quick disaster. That is why so many people have felt anxious about some recent events.
At the last Assembly nine months ago, Mr. Dulles restated to the United Nations the principle of peaceful co-existence in the following words:
No peace can be enduring which repudiates the concept that government should rest on free consent…But our creed does not call for exporting revolution and inciting others to violence. Let me make that emphatic. We believe that violent change usually destroys what it would gain. We put our hopes in the vast possibilities of peaceful change.
That is the philosophy behind the Charter pledge, for the renunciation of force means that all disputes shall be settled, and that all changes in the status quo shall be effected, by peaceful means alone.
How does that square with recent events in Guatemala? If I may borrow language from the past, Guatemala is "a far-away country" where there has been "a quarrel between people of whom we know nothing." But it is precisely in such countries that the vital tests of international principles may come. Think of Manchuria, Abyssinia, Czechoslovakia and Korea. Many hon. Members opposite were no more worried about Abyssinia in 1936 than they are about Guatemala now.
Let me try to explain—without exaggeration, I hope—what our anxieties are. I shall not repeat the history which my right hon. Friend described. We have seen no real evidence that the late Guatemalan Government was Communist-controlled. But even if it were, was it a danger to America—3½ million people 700 miles from the Panama Canal? And what about "exporting revolution" to change the status quo?
Sixteen months ago the Guatemalan Government circulated a memorandum to the members of the United Nations warning them that an intervention in Guatemala was being prepared. In February of this year, and again in April, they repeated the warning, and named Colonel Armas as the leader. A month ago everything happened as they predicted. "The Times" printed a photograph of the colleagues of Colonel Armas at their headquarters on Honduran soil. "The Times" reported that there was no rising of the people to support the rebels; and, when all was over, their correspondent said that, after eight days,
it had looked as though the rebel cause was doomed. But with the aid of a number of foreign aircraft the insurgents won the day.
A few days before the invasion began, the United States made their strange request to search foreign ships for arms. A few days after it was over, the American Ambassador in Guatemala, Mr. Puerifoy, gave a party at which Colonel Armas was a specially honoured guest. On 5th July "The Times" Guatemalan correspondent said that Mr. Puerifoy "had done much behind the scenes to overthrow the Arbenz régime."
Directly the invasion started, the Guatemalan Government appealed to the Security Council under Articles 34, 35 and 39 of the Charter. The Council met at once—on Sunday. At Question time the Minister of State has made a lot of play with the fact that the Soviet delegate vetoed a reference to the Organisation of American States. But the Guatemalan delegate opposed it too.
I shall repeat some questions which I have put already to the Minister at Question time, so he has been fully warned. Had not the Guatemalan Government an absolute right to have the case dealt with by the Council itself under Article 35? Had not the Council the absolute duty under Article 39 to determine whether

aggression, whether the Charter-breaking furnishing of arms, supplies and bases for a rebel invasion of Guatemala had, in fact, occurred? If that is so, why did Her Majesty's delegate abstain instead of voting with New Zealand against the reference to the O.A.S.?
If the Minister argues that the Council was entitled to entrust the task of fact-finding to the O.A.S., why did the fact-finding committee wait five days after the second meeting of the Security Council before it left Washington? Why did it never go to Honduras or Guatemala? If its report does not give full information, will the Government urge that such information shall be obtained? In particular, will they verify what were the foreign aircraft which did so much to decide the war? Who bought them for the rebels? What Government gave the licence for their purchase?
I do not want to exaggerate the matter. I hope the Security Council may yet clear it up. But it cannot be buried by a fait accompli. The "Hindustan Times," a Delhi paper of high standing, said this of the Prime Minister's Washington declaration:
The invocation of the United Nations and the Atlantic Charter has a hollow ring after the Anglo-American voting on the Guatemalan appeal.
The "New York Times" reported that delegates to the United Nations in New York from Latin-America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were gravely concerned, not with Guatemala, but with the possible effect of the Guatemalan case on the United Nations.
Of course this precedent will not be fatal; but it may be singularly difficult to live down. If this precedent turns out to be what we fear, it will be the more serious because it was precisely against the export of revolution, against invasion by rebels trained, armed, supplied and advised by a foreign Power, that we fought in Korea for three years. Let us not forget that at first the invading troops were all Koreans. We said that to let them change the status quo by force and install their Government would destroy the Charter.
The Americans have said the same about the massive help in bases, arms, supplies, transport and advisers, given by China to Ho Chi Minh. It is because of Indo-China that I have spent so long on


Guatemala, and that I shall watch with such anxiety the further action of Her Majesty's delegate in the Council at New York. I shall not go over the events in Indo-China again. Many people, including many Frenchmen, regret that France did not do in 1946 what we did in India in 1947. Many people regret that Ho Chi Minh, when he was already named by France as Prime Minister in a Government of Viet Nam with extensive powers, did not do what Pandit Nehru did in India—stick to peaceful methods of winning the fuller independence which he desired. Many people regret that Russia vetoed membership in the United Nations for Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia two years ago. That would have brought them the full nationhood which Canada and India today enjoy.
These mistakes are history. All rational men must hope today that M. Mendés-France's magnificently gallant effort for an honourable truce shall now succeed. It would be extremely grave if the lure of conquest caused the Communists to make these efforts fail. The purpose behind the truce must be in line with the declaration of the five Asian Prime Ministers in Colombo in April last: full independence for the three nations, Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam; the free choice of their Governments for themselves without the intervention of any outside Power. This was put into words in the Joint Declaration of Pandit Nehru and Mr. Chou en-Lai. I quote it:
The settlement should aim at the creation of free, democratic, unified and independent States which should not be used for aggressive purposes or be subject to foreign intervention.
If that is the genuine aim, and if these States are admitted to the United Nations without delay, then, as the Colombo Powers proposed, the United Nations could be used to help them, and the great Powers could give guarantees to do their utmost to prevent the fighting breaking out again.
None of that is inconsistent with the provisional partition of Viet Nam which M. Mendés-France has had the courage to accept. It would be more likely to succeed, if the truce were supervised by a commission of the five Colombo Powers. I have never understood how any Asian could resist that proposal; its acceptance proves, at least, beyond all doubt, the good faith of France and her

allies. I have never understood how anybody could reasonably demand that the commission should be hamstrung by a veto. If the Communists insist on that condition, and reject the offer of a truce, on these most reasonable and honourable terms, and if they strive instead for conquest, it is very certain that they will provoke fear, suspicion and hostility among other Asian Powers.
The most significant statement of recent times was Pandit Nehru's declaration at Colombo that he "would not support a demand for the withdrawal of the French troops from Indo-China," because, he said, "if they were withdrawn, that would only leave a vacuum which would be filled by another Power." In the last debate in the Indian Parliament, he said that the French troops "could not be withdrawn from Indo-China before a lasting settlement had been reached."
At the conference of Asian Socialists in Burma a month or two ago, the acting Burmese Foreign Secretary, himself a Socialist, said that he thought Soviet imperialism was more dangerous than the imperialism of the West. If the Russians and the Chinese in Geneva forget the fears and apprehensions which events in Korea, in Tibet and in Indo-China have aroused in the rest of Asia, if they intensify those fears by refusing the truce which the five Prime Ministers demanded as an urgent necessity at Colombo three months ago, they will do irreparable damage to their name and standing in the East.
Fortunately, it seems that Mr. MendésFrance has a good chance of an early and acceptable truce in Indo-China. The Foreign Secretary told us on 23rd June that, if such a truce should come about, the Colombo Powers would be willing to take part in supervising and guaranteeing the settlement. If those Asian countries guarantee the settlement, then surely Britain, France, America, Russia and China can do the same.
It is my belief that behind the guarantees there might well be a South-East Asian pact, that is to say, if the Asian nations desire to join it, and if it is founded, like N.A.T.O. on the Charter, and is backed by the British Commonwealth and other nations of the West. Three weeks ago the Foreign Secretary said that "such a defence organisation would not be fully effective without the understanding and support of the


Colombo Powers." But why should it not have their understanding and support? Since 1945, the Western Powers have helped 600 million Asians to full national independence; all those nations specifically endorsed the resistance to exported revolution in Korea four years ago. Is it not common sense to reach comprehensive defensive understandings which would make such exported revolutions less likely in times to come? Would it be common sense to throw away what we fought for in Korea at such heavy cost?
All this has a bearing on another vital issue about which my right hon. Friend spoke this afternoon. Four years ago a book was written in which the following words appear:
We ought to be willing that all the nations should be members of the U.N. without attempting to appraise closely those which are good or those which are bad. If the Communist Government of China in fact proves its ability to govern China without serious domestic resistance, then it, too, should be admitted to the U.N.
The writer of those words was Mr. Dulles. Of course, as he said the other day, a lot has happened since 1950. There has been the Chinese aggression in Korea; the long procrastination at Panmunjom, while for two years bitter fighting went on; the strange, disloyal treatment of the Neutral Commission in North Korea since the truce; the long delay in agreeing to the political conference for which the truce provided; and the large-scale switch of military aid to Indo-China. That is a record which the Americans remember, and which we ought not to forget.
But the fighting stopped in Korea a year ago. No one would now renew it to unite Korea. If a truce comes in Indo-China, the same will be true there. Meanwhile all the arguments in Mr. Dulles' book still hold good. Once the Chinese are seated in the United Nations, they will by their entry, for the first time, have recognised the restraints and obligations of the Charter. All their Asian neighbours want them in. All will feel safer once they are in. That may be of real importance in Geneva in the next few days, and in Asia in the next few crucial months. That is why the prospect of a truly peaceful co-existence in the United Nations must be kept alive today.
Peace in Asia, security in Asia, still depend on security in Europe. I confess

that I hope that a truce in Indo-China will help to bring the E.D.C. Convention into force. I am afraid that I did not understand what the Prime Minister said about it this afternoon. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us that any new arrangements to replace E.D.C. would control Germany's contribution to defence, and that nothing will be done without the full consent of France.
But I hope that the need for the separation of the Bonn and the E.D.C. Treaties will remain academic. I still want E.D.C. because I think that it might be the instrument of Franco-German reconciliation; because the Germans prefer it to a national army and national general staff; because I do not want us to repeat the tragic errors of the interwar years. I want it because I believe in the future greatness of France, and I believe that France may some day help us to transform it into the international Police Force which, when we get a world-wide system of disarmament, we shall have to have.
I say "when" we get a system of disarmament, and not "if," because, as Lord Grey said after the First World War, "It is very plain that we must disarm or perish." No one who heard the speeches of the Home Secretary and his predecessor on civil defence last week can doubt that that is true.
I welcome the paragraph in the Washington statement about armament reduction. I welcome the Anglo-French memorandum in this U.N. report to which my right hon. Friend referred. I am glad that the Minister of State is to give us in a White Paper a full record of what the members of his U.N. sub-committee said. I hope that when we receive that record we may debate it, and hear from the Government what they mean to do about this matter in the Assembly in September next. Would-be clever people, self-styled realists—General Eisenhower is not among them—still call internationally-controlled disarmament Utopian. The truth is that they are the Utopians themselves. They, by wishful thinking, close their eyes to nightmare horrors that are very near.
Science has made a revolution in human society which nothing can undo. Wendell Wilkie and Litvinov will live in history for five words which they first used. We do live in one world, on both


sides of the Iron Curtain. Peace is indivisible. Only the rule of law through the United Nations can save mankind. Guatemala, Korea, Indo-China, Chinese admission to the United Nations, the atomic bomb, are all parts of one problem—how to substitute the rule of law for the rule of force. Unless we can adjust our thinking, our policies and our institutions to the scientists' revolution, unless we can mobilise the opinion of the world behind the rule of law, unless in East and West we can bring the nations to a great new effort of spiritual regeneration, our doom is near. And we believe that now, as always, it is for the British Commonwealth to lead.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Perhaps I may begin by dealing with what was said by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) about Guatemala. Her Majesty's Government have throughout done their best to see that the United Nations should be seized of the problem and the original complaint of Guatemala of 19th June was dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
We have to face the fact that in the United States and among the Latin American States there is a belief that the Organisation of American States has a right, under Article 52 of the Charter, to deal with these matters first. We constantly say in the United Nations that we should not have signed the Charter had it not been for Article 2 (7), dealing with domestic jurisdiction. We always say that when they are trying to debate the political development of our own Colonies. I believe that the Americans feel just the same about Article 52 and the Organisation of American States.
Had it not been for the Soviet veto of 20th June, the Organisation of American States could and would have taken immediate steps to look into the Guatemalan complaint. As it was, I quite agree that there was delay, owing to the Soviet veto; and the Committee did not reach Mexico City, en route for Guatemala, until 29th June. By that time the fighting was nearly at an end and a new regime had taken the place of the Government of President Arbenz.
I will be quite frank with hon. Members; I think it was a matter for regret

that the Fact-Finding Committee did not visit the three countries concerned. They did not do so because the authorities of the three countries informed them on 2nd July that the dispute which was the cause of the committee's journey had ceased to exist. Personally, I think that the committee should, nevertheless, have visited the three countries concerned.
We still have not seen the text of the final report of the Peace Committee, but our view is that the Security Council should consider that report. I am bound to say this: that the way in which this matter has been handled by the organisation of American States will, of course, guide us in future as to whether or not Article 52 should be dealt with in the way in which it has been dealt with in the past. I do not want to say more about it except that I think that some of the matters of fact have been rather exaggerated.
I turn next to the question of the admission of Communist China to the United Nations. One difficulty about this matter is that by recognition of Communist China we usually mean the exchange of diplomatic representatives, and our view upon that is well known: we think it is a question of the de facto, effective Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has himself said, the worse one's relations are with a country, on the whole the more reason there is to have the normal diplomatic methods of intercourse with them.
In using the phrase "recognition," we usually mean it in that sense; and when things were said about recognition here, we were referring to the exchange of normal diplomatic representatives. In the United States, however, recognition of Communist China means the admission of Communist China to the United Nations and their taking the Chinese seat in the United Nations. I believe that very often criticism of things which are said here arises because that distinction is not always appreciated.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the history of the admission of Communist China to the United Nations and to the Chinese seat in the United Nations. The Labour Government recognised the Peking Government on 6th January, 1950. They abstained on votes relating to the seating of the Peking Government in the United Nations up to


September, 1950. They then voted in favour of seating on six occasions up to February, 1951. In February, 1951, by a resolution of the General Assembly, passed by 44 votes to seven, with nine abstentions, Communist China was condemned for aggression in Korea.
On 27th June, 1951, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), then Foreign Secretary, made the statement to which the Prime Minister referred, saying that in view of the Peking Government's persistence in behaviour inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the Charter, it was inappropriate that they should take the Chinese seat in the United Nations. That statement was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 18th June, 1952, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th July, 1953. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we hoped that the armistice in Korea was a step towards the seating of the Peking Government in the Chinese seat. But we know all the difficulties about the political conference, and the result of the discussions in the United Nations were very disappointing.
The Geneva Conference, so far as it related to Korea, has also been disappointing. The Communists, in the talks on Korea, have repudiated the authority of the United Nations and have, in fact, described the United Nations as the tool of aggression, That was not very promising language when one bears in mind this other matter of their taking China's seat in the Security Council. The fact is that there is as yet no peace treaty. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the present arrangements for supervising the truce are unsatisfactory. We have the question of the Swiss and Swedish membership of that Commission still to consider, and all that one can say is that the situation in Korea has not developed as we hoped that it would a year ago.
Then we come to Indo-China. I am sure that we are all glad that Mr. Bedell Smith is to go back to the Geneva Conference. It must be clear from what the right hon. Gentleman himself has just said that any arrangements for a cease-fire and settlement in China will be extremely

complicated and very difficult indeed to carry out, and their successful carrying out must depend upon good faith. Therefore, there is a strong view held that before the question of the Peking Government taking the China seat is considered, good faith should be shown by deeds and not just by words.
I think that is the view which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has expressed in the Committee today. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) was wrong in saying that there has been a change in the Government's attitude on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the end of his statement:
In these circumstances, although Her Majesty's Government still believe that the Central People's Government should represent China in the United Nations, they certainly do not consider that this is the moment for the matter to be reconsidered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 46.]
On every opportunity I have for speaking to an American audience, either in public or privately, I put our point of view with regard to this matter, and I seek to point out that, far from it being a disadvantage to the free world to have the Peking Government take the China seat in the United Nations, it may well be an advantage. I do not think that we have suffered in any way at all from the debates in the United Nations in which the Russians have participated. They have showed very clearly their attitude and, in very many cases, their continued negative attitude.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there had been no change in his attitude, but so far as the published report of his Bridgwater speech goes, he put in no proviso as to this being an untimely moment for us maintaining our view that China should be seated in the United Nations. That is the change to which I referred.

Mr. Lloyd: I said nothing in the speech which I made at Bridgwater about this being a timely moment. I say that this is not the appropriate moment. The plain fact is that although we believe and we seek to persuade and put forward our point of view, surely it is complete folly to suggest that at this moment we should seek to force this through against the view


of our American allies. That is what would have to be done. It would be a question of forcing this matter through against the wishes of the American Government.
If I may turn from Chinese representation to Egypt, and address what I have to say to perhaps a rather different part of the Committee—varying points of view have been put forward. I think that predominantly the opinion in the Committee is that agreement should be made on suitable terms. I am quite certain that we shall not get an agreement—I do not believe that anyone thinks we shall get an agreement—on any terms by which the fighting formations have to stay for a substantial time in Egypt.
Allegations have been made that Her Majesty's Government have been guilty of discourtesy to the House in not informing the House of the opening of the negotiations, although we have repeatedly indicated our willingness to negotiate and our desire for agreement. The negotiations broke down because of incidents in the Canal Zone, but since then a substantial improvement has taken place, so new discussions started on Saturday evening.
It is impossible to discuss this matter and disclose the terms which had been put forward. I think my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in December, when he was faced with a somewhat similar point, that if one did disclose the terms put forward at the commencement of negotiations, it gave the Power with whom one was negotiating both an advantage and a grievance, and I think that is very true. Either it appears as an ultimatum, or else they are able or are in a position to demand concessions.
I assure the Committee that, although we cannot reveal the terms that have been put forward, we are certainly aware of the factors which have to be considered. The new development of the hydrogen bomb, the need for the effective deployment of our forces, the disagreeable conditions for our forces, the bad relations between the Arab States and Israel and the importance of our prestige and influence in Arab and African countries—these are the factors in the situation and all have been taken into account in formulating the new proposals.
In reply to one particular question, may I say that we have kept closely in touch with the Commonwealth countries on these matters. I myself have not met an Arab leader or a Pakistani leader who has failed to say that a settlement of this problem would improve our relations with the Arab world and stability in the Middle East.
The alternative proposal to seeking agreement on reasonable terms is that we should stay on with a small force in a hostile land. I really cannot believe that this is a practicable proposition, and I think the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) advanced were really fully conclusive. Therefore, we have put forward a reasonable proposal and we hope for agreement, but, of course, if it proves impossible to reach a reasonable agreement—and we think that the terms we have put forward are reasonable—we may have to sit it out and await with patience and strength whatever may befall us. However, I think that both the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government desire to come to a reasonable agreement, and I believe that it is possible to do so.
May I now say a word or two about the Sudan? We shall continue to do all we can to secure genuine freedom of choice for the people of the Sudan. The forces of Sudanese nationalism and patriotism must be allowed a free chance of expression we have agreed to self-government, to be followed by self-determination, and we shall continue to try to keep our word.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) raised the question of the change in the Governor-General's Commission. We thought, and said so, that it was a great pity that the sectarian balance and the balance between Government and Opposition on that Commission should have been disturbed, but there is no doubt that the matter was one which had to be left to the Sudanese Parliament.
The Sudanese are a proud and very likeable people. There is genuine good feeling between our two races. We have done a great deal to deserve it by the record of our administration there, and I would advise my hon. Friends to read the rather remarkable speech of the Sudanese Prime Minister in moving the Bill for


compensation—a satisfactory Bill—in the Sudanese Parliament the other day. Considering that he was elected as a member of an anti-British party, it really was quite a notable speech, and I myself do not take so gloomy a view of the future of Anglo-Sudanese relations as do some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Amery: My right hon. and learned Friend used the argument that the Sudanese must be able to assert their independence. Can we take it that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that?

Mr. Lloyd: We shall do all in our power to see that the Sudanese have a free choice about their future which was promised to them.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: My right hon. and learned Friend has told us that a satisfactory agreement with Egypt must allow for the eventual departure of British forces. Can he tell us whether that is a view in which the Commonwealth countries concur or whether it is not so?

Mr. Lloyd: I said that this is a matter where we have kept in close touch with Commonwealth Governments, and we certainly have no reason to believe that that is not their view.
If I may, I should like now to come to Germany and E.D.C. The basic point which the Committee should keep constantly in mind is the fact stated in a recent Labour Party pamphlet on the Defence of Europe and which says:
If the Treaty"—
that is, referring to E.D.C.—
is not ratified, an alternative method of providing a West German defence contribution will have to be sought.
That is the basic factor behind this particular controversy. We think that E.D.C. is by far the most satisfactory method for a German defence contribution, and I am amazed that a contrary view should be held by anyone in France, in Britain or even in the Soviet Union, because it seems to me that the whole conception of E.D.C. prescribes limitations on national power which should be supremely reassuring to those who have suffered from Germany in the past.
France has now to come to a decision, so we are told, and in passing, I must say that we welcome the desire for a decision expressed by M. Mendés-France. If that does not happen, or if the decision is delayed, time cannot be allowed to run on without anything happening. It is now over two years since the occupation Powers agreed to the removal of the Occupation Statute. To delay still further the fulfilment of this undertaking would be to discourage most dangerously the movement and development of the democratic processes in Western Germany. It would undo much of the progress which has been made during the periods of office of successive Governments in this country towards fostering free institutions in a land where failure of such free institutions in the past has led to dangerous and devastating consequences to Europe and to the world.
Therefore, something must be done. We shall, of course, consult the French and seek agreement at every stage. The best thing to do, it seems to us, will be to bring into force the Bonn Conventions as agreed upon two years ago. The Bonn Conventions do not deal with a defence contribution. That is dealt with under the E.D.C. Treaty. Therefore, if the Bonn Conventions come into effect separately the question of a German defence contribution must be reserved for the time being. What I have said is to give an indication of what may happen in hypothetical circumstances which we hope may not arise, for there is still time and opportunity for E.D.C. to be passed.
One word, in passing, about the reference in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to threats to the French and to Europe. He said, I think, that the Americans were like a Victorian parent cutting off his allowance to his child. In fairness to the United States, it should be pointed out that the Mutual Security Act, 1953, provides that 50 per cent. of the military aid to Europe must be supplied to the European Defence Community. That is not a question of uttering threats, but a definite matter of United States legislation and they must try to keep within its terms.
If I may end on a general word, I should say that in some areas and on some matters international tension has decreased, but on the other hand, the problems with which we are faced have


never been more baffling. On the credit side we can regard the close co-operation in the Commonwealth, the growing strength and unity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the warm friendship and agreement upon so much between the United States and the United Kingdom, re-emphasised by the recent visit of my right hon. Friends. We can take note of the good work—I do not suggest that it is sufficient—that is being done to raise standards in underdeveloped countries, and we have seen some indications from the other side of the Iron Curtain of the desire for peaceful coexistence.
On the debit side, however, there is the fact that it is deeds and not words that matter, and we have not yet had very much by way of deeds. The speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) was like a breath of fresh air, and I hope that everyone who was not here will take the trouble to read it. It might be a very good companion and guide for the travellers.
The difficulty is that the verbal aspirations and expressions of benevolent intention have to be translated into action before we can be confident about the future. I have spent some time at the 19 meetings of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee in London, hearing the Soviet Union professing a desire to ban atomic weapons, but every time that one tried to get down to practical details whereby there would be an effective international supervision of such a ban, the action taken by them was completely evasive.

Mr. S. O, Davies: Nonsense. That is not correct.

Mr. Lloyd: There are still many anxious days ahead, and we shall remain resolute in our determination to preserve at the cost of heavy sacrifices the strength and so the influence of this country. At the same time, we shall seek any and every means of reaching agreements which will make a practical factual reality of peaceful co-existence and with the passage of time lead on to a real fellowship between the peoples of the world.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Mr. Kaberry]—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MIS CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Lennox-Boyd.

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have called the Minister of Transport, but there has been no reply from the Government Front Bench. May we ask what is the next step?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Whip said "Now," and I imagined that there would be someone present to move the Amendment which I have called.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: In those circumstances, may I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned"?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I hope that you will not accept the Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My right hon. Friend is, of couse, just on his way into the House [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here now."] He no doubt went hurriedly to get his full notes, and will be back at any moment. I hope, therefore, that the House will—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A motion was moved that further consideration of the Bill—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): rose—

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) moved that further consideration be adjourned. Before you could put that to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker or even mention it fully, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal intervened. It seems to me that, in view of the fact that the Minister was not here to conduct the debate, the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend at


least ought to have been put by you to the House before the Lord Privy Seal intervened.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not accept the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I am quite within my rights in not accepting it. I was under the impression that when the Lord Privy Seal got up he was going to move the first Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. George Jeger: Since the Lord Privy Seal did not move a Motion, will you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, please enlighten us on what is the business before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not have time to do so.

Mr. Molson: May I humbly apologise to the House?

Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Gentleman may, but he need not do so.

Mr. Molson: I was working in my room on this Bill and I thought that ten o'clock would be the time when we should start discussing it. I am extremely sorry and I apologise for my late appearance.

Mr. James Callaghan: We have never accused the hon. Gentleman of discourtesy. We all know that he is a most courteous Minister but the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation was sitting in the Chamber and left at the end of our previous debate. He made no attempt to come to the Box to move the Amendment to this Bill. That was the complaint.

Mr. Molson: I am extremely sorry. It is entirely my fault. This task was delegated to me, and I am entirely at fault in having been unpunctual.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: Let us know the reason the Minister ran away.

Clause 1.—(CHARGES ON CERTAIN INDE PENDENT PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "determined," and to insert "fixed."
In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) moved an Amendment to leave out "determine," and to insert "approved." I gave an undertaking then that, in view of what my hon. and learned Friend said about the advantage of using the word "fixed," which appears in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, we would consider the matter between then and the Report stage. We believe that the Amendment would be an improvement in the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Bing: I wish to be the first to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the exquisite good taste of this change and I am very glad that the Leader of the House is here to note it. It will be recalled that the legal case which raised the question of the meaning of "determined" involved an unfortunate dispute with the Junior Carlton Club. Nothing could be more appropriate than that this word of unhappy memory should be removed from the Measure and a word of exactly the same meaning, but not associated with that august body, should be substituted.
Hon. Members acquainted with the law will know that in the case of Wylie v. Carlyon, in the 1922 Chancery Reports, the executors of one of the original members of the Junior Carlton Club had the audacity to sue on the meaning of this particular word the then trustees of the club and to attack the original trustee deed to which the original trustees were none other than the great Lord Beaconsfield and the great Lord Salisbury—it was not the present Lord Salisbury or it might have been understandable.
In these circumstances, I think it very appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have chosen another word and should not have given his reason for it. On both these things, his good taste in choosing the other word and avoiding mentioning what was obviously the reason for so doing, the hon. Gentleman deserves the commendation of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 13, leave out "determined," and insert "fixed."—[Mr. Molson.]

Clause 2.—(CHARGES ON INDEPENDENT TRAMWAYS, TROLLEY VEHICLES AND RAILWAYS OF THE NATURE OF A TRAMWAY.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "that," to insert "Part of that."
This is a drafting Amendment in line with a number of Amendments—

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to put the Question.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I rose to ask which Amendment we are discussing, because on my Order Paper there is an Amendment in the name of the Minister of Transport to page 2, line 29, and that I think you read out, but the Parliamentary Secretary certainly said, "After that,' insert Part of that '." I rose before you put the Question to find out which Question was being put.

Mr. Speaker: I probably did not hear, but I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary did move the first Amendment, to page 2, line 29. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Molson: I am sorry, I turned over two pages.
Later we shall be moving an Amendment to Clause 8 in order to provide that the revocation of Defence Regulation 58 shall not take effect until one month after the passing of this Measure. This is being done because we find that there are a number of applications which have been received by the Ministry and which will not have been dealt with under Regulation 56 before the passing of the Act.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we be told which Amendment the hon. Gentleman is now moving?

Mr. Speaker: It is fairly clear. Owing to the vigilance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I had not actually proposed the Question on the first Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to page 2, line 29.

Mr. Wigg: Did not the Parliamentary Secretary move one Amendment and make a speech on the other Amendment? How can he get out of the difficulty—change his speech or change the Amendment?

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order. Is it not now requisite for the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Question you have proposed from the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I have not actually proposed it, because it has not yet been moved.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: May we have an indication that the first Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary moved will he spoken to in proper sequence?

Mr. Speaker: Everything will be done in proper sequence.

Mr. Molson: I was naturally speaking to the Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, had put to the House, and—

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order. I should like to ask how the Parliamentary Secretary can speak to an Amendment which has apparently been put by you, Mr. Speaker, to the House if in fact it has not been moved?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment I called was the Amendment in page 2, line 29. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to speak to that and I understood that he was doing so.

Mr. Callaghan: May we ask who moved that particular Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I called it. It has not yet been proposed and I understood that the hon. Member was moving it.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You pulled up my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and said that you must propose the Question first and my hon. Friend had to sit down until you proposed the Question.

Mr. Speaker: I proposed the Question, but I found, owing to the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that it had apparently not been moved. Therefore, my proposal of the Question was a nullity. I am now asking that the nullity be made good by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I wish that we could get on with it.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave cut:
had immediately before the said date,
and to insert:
would have had if this Act had not been passed.


It had originally been our intention that this should come into effect immediately upon the passing of the Act. It is now clear that a number of applications made to the Ministry of Transport under Defence Regulation 56 would not have been dealt with at the time that we hoped that this Act would have been passed. We are now proposing, therefore, when we reach Clause 8, to move an Amendment that this will come into effect one month after the passing of the Act. This is a necessary preliminary Amendment, which I ask the House to accept.

Mr. Bing: There is one comment which I think should be made. The Parliamentary Secretary explained his unfortunate absence when his name was first called—before you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, and we were forced to move the Adjournment of the debate in the absence of any Minister on the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman apologised to the House very nicely indeed. He explained that he was in his room studying the documents. He then explained that the reason he spoke to the wrong Amendment was, as I understand it, that two pages of his brief were stuck together.
It would help the House to get some idea of the degree of study which the hon. Member has been able to give to the matter if he could tell us whether or not he only got to the first page of his brief during this period of study; or how it was—if he was such a long time in the room that he was not here in time for the debate—that he did not notice that these two particular pages were stuck together, which was the reason he gave to the House for being unable to move the third Amendment standing on the Paper.
I am sure that the House would willingly give permission for the Parliamentary Secretary to speak again if he would deal with this problem, which is an entirely non-political one, but which I am sure interests hon. Members on both sides of the House. We should then be given some indication of the degree of guidance we can hope for from the Minister when he moves any subsequent Amendment, and whether there are any more pages stuck together.

Mr. Speaker: We must deal with one Amendment at a time.

Mr. Hale: I wish to point out, in all courtesy, that this is the third Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary and in respect of all three he has given no explanation to the House at all. In regard to the first Amendment, he said that he was impressed by the argument of an hon. Member behind him, but he did not particularise the hon. Member sufficiently for me to identify him, nor did he specify what was the argument. I did not intervene, because it seemed to me that the Amendment was of no consequence, as it merely substituted one word for another. Nor was I impressed by the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that any association with Lord Beaconsfield was detrimental to the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Now there is another Amendment. With very great respect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he has not explained it to us at all. He has merely said that the Government have changed their mind in thinking that the operative date should be varied. He has given no reason for it.
This is an increasing practice in this House. Time after time, owing to the bungling of the Leader of the House, we are called upon to discuss important Measures in some detail after 10 o'clock at night. The general attitude of Ministers is "As it is late, we will not spend time discussing it." Increasingly it has been suggested "This is technical," "This is verbal" or "This is consequential." It becomes almost a matter of form.
Those of us who zealously cherish the traditions of the House wish Ministers would at least have the courtesy to give us a little explanation. Sometimes when explanation is given it helps to terminate discussion a little more speedily than when we are left groping in the dark looking through our papers trying to find out rapidly while the discussion is going on what the Amendment is about and whether we should let it go without a contest or not. I hope that in future the hon. Gentleman will explain matters a little more clearly.

Mr. Molson: I ask for the permission of the House to speak a second time in order to give a full explanation. I am


extremely sorry if, in dealing with something which was discussed fully upstairs during the Committee stage, I have assumed that the people chiefly interested in the Amendment are those who were engaged in the Committee. I entirely recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, and I will give an explanation of the purpose of the Amendment in about three sentences.
The intention of the Bill is to provide permanent statutory means of altering the charges made for different forms of public transport. Perhaps I might have the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I understood that he wanted an explanation.

Mr. Hale: I apologise.

Mr. Molson: Ever since 1939 this has been done under Defence Regulation 56. The effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be to repeal the Defence Regulation and to provide permanent statutory means for altering the charges. As the Bill was drafted, and as it was discussed in Committee, it was intended that the Defence Regulation should come to an end as soon as the Act came into operation.
There are a number of applications from various statutory undertakers which are at the present time outstanding. There is a procedure for dealing with them, and we are not certain that all the applications which have been made under the Emergency Regulations procedure will have been completed at the time the Act comes into force. The Amendment is preliminary to an Amendment which I shall move to Clause 8 to postpone the effect of that for one month. I hope that with that explanation the House will accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "that," to insert "Part of that."
In Committee a number of Amendments were introduced to make special provision for the peculiar case of Glasgow. As a result, a number of drafting Amendments had to be made and it has now appeared to us desirable that this additional one should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(REVISION OF CHARGES BY INDEPENDENT HARBOUR UNDERTAKINGS, ETC.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 33, to leave out "next following subsection," and to insert:
provisions of this section.
Again, this is a drafting Amendment, designed to make quite clear what was already the effect of the words, that the Minister's power to make orders revising charges is to be subject to the provisions of the whole of Clause 6, and not merely to the provisions of subsection (3) of that Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(i) the Minister shall not vary any charge other than those to which the application relates, except after consultation with the undertakers and such other persons, or such bodies representative of other persons, appearing to him to have a substantial interest as may appear to him appropriate.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) moved to leave out the words "whether or not." I indicated then that we were generally sympathetic to the idea that we should so amend the Bill, but that the words he proposed would not be appropriate. This Amendment ensures giving effect to what my hon. Friend asked for and what was acceptable to the interests concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, to leave out "the undertakers are required by statute," and to insert:
immediately before the commencement of this Act, or, in the case of an undertaking such as is referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section, immediately before the coming into force of the order therein mentioned, the undertakers were required by any statutory provision then in force.
Again, this is purely a drafting Amendment. During the Committee stage another Amendment was moved by my


hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) to add proviso (3) to subsection (2) of Clause 6 and this was accepted. This Amendment carries out the intention of the Amendment in its application to an undertaking in respect of which an order is made under paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of the Clause.

Mr. Hale: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of paragraph (f)? This is an obscure and difficult Clause, one we are all trying to master, and I have not been able to understand what is the class that can be brought in under paragraph (f). Without that knowledge the Amendment is meaningless.
During the Second Reading debate the hon. Gentleman gave a clear explanation of Clause 9 and said that there had been at that time some opposition to the tenor of the Clause from a number of municipal corporations. I gather that opposition is still maintained, and Oldham is one of the towns covered by this Clause and has an undertaking which is clearly covered. If the Parliamentary Secretary would be courteous enough to seek the leave of the House to answer this question—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The rule against speaking twice does not apply to an hon. Member who moves an Amendment on the Report stage to a Bill which has been considered in Standing Committee.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten for the moment that all democratic institutions have class distinctions. Under the circumstances, there is no need for me to urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do this, although I shall be grateful if he will do so.

Mr. Molson: The Clause deals with the revision of charges by independent harbour undertakings, and subsection (1) deals with the general categories of undertakings. There are particular categories in which the Minister is able to lay it down, for example, in the case of some undertakings which have two different characters, that the undertaking may be treated separately as regards this Clause.
Paragraph (f) of the subsection provides that the Minister
may from time to time by Order declare to be a class of undertakings
certain parts of undertakings which, in respect of other activities, come under other Clauses of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 46, to leave out:
if so required by the Minister.
This is consequential upon an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) which we accepted. He proposed a rough-and-ready procedure which would reduce the amount of work required in the case of an application. At first, the Government proposed a more elaborate procedure but, having ascertained that those who are most likely to be affected were prepared to accept this rough-and-ready procedure, we are prepared to accept it. The Amendment is intended to give full effect to what was then proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out "twenty-eight," and to insert "forty-two."
The interests concerned have represented to us that 28 days would not allow sufficient time for the lodging of objections accompanied by grounds of objection, particularly in cases where objection is lodged by a body which is representative of a number of persons. There are cases, for example, where a committee meets only once a month, or something of that kind. It is at the request of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Traders' Dock and Harbour Co-ordinating Committee that we move the Amendment to increase the period of time during which objection may be lodged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 12, after "objection," insert:
or, where the order would vary any charge other than those to which the application relates, by any person or body with whom he has consulted in pursuance of paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section."—[Mr. Molson.]

Clause 7.—(POWER OF INDEPENDENT HARBOUR UNDERTAKING TO MAKE CHARGES IN RESPECT OF SEAPLANES, ETC.)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(4) In section twenty-eight of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 (which relates to the exemption of certain vessels from harbour rates) as incorporated with any statutory provision, the expression "vessel" shall be deemed to include any such aircraft as aforesaid on the surface of the water.
Under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, exemption from the payment of harbour rates and dues is provided for (a) in the case of Her Majesty's Service, (b) in the case of the Customs and Excise, (c) in the case of Trinity House or the Commissioners of Northern Lights, or (d) in the case of any vessel employed by or under the authority of the Postmaster-General. The present Amendment, by including aircraft, will exclude aircraft from liability to charges in cases where vessels are already exempted under the 1847 Act.

Mr. Hale: This is quite an unusual Amendment on which, I think, we ought to spend a moment or two. Personally, I hope that it is accepted, but I do not think that this matter was discussed in Committee, and the last words used by the Parliamentary Secretary about aircraft under the control of the Postmaster-General require some elucidation because most passenger aircraft now carry mail, and in large quantities.
Unfortunately, we have very few seaplanes in operation today, and I deplore that fact, because I think that the seaplane is the happiest and best mode of travel, and one which an island nation ought to have. At the same time, we are legislating for the future, and most of us hope that we shall have the seaplane services restored.
How will this Amendment affect the matter? Does it mean that seaplanes carrying mail are under the control of the Postmaster-General under the 1847 Act, or does it not? Most of the seaplane services come from the Far East, and most of the aircraft carry large quantities of mail. When the Korean war was in progress they were carrying enormous quantities. Indeed, when unfortunately one aircraft

came down at that time vast quantities of letters were lost.
Does the wording of the 1847 Act exclude vessels controlled by the Postmaster-General? As I understand it, this Amendment means that a seaplane is a vessel for all the purposes of that Act. Is a seaplane carrying mail exclusively exempted? Is a seaplane carrying a substantial quantity of mail and passengers exempted, or what is the nature of the exemption given?

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman must draw a distinction between a seaplane or an aircraft which is, in fact, carrying mail under contract and one which is employed by or under the authority of the Postmaster-General. Therefore, the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be included. But if it were an aircraft which was either the property of or had been chartered by the Postmaster-General and which was used exclusively for his purposes, it would then come within the provisions of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(REVOCATION IN PART (WITH SAVINGS) OF DEFENCE REGULATION 56.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 19, to leave out "passing of this Act," and to insert "commencement of this section."
I gave the House an explanation earlier this evening when there was a preliminary Amendment, so perhaps it will not be necessary for me to repeat what I then said.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to us just why the words "commencement of this section" are used? Surely the more normal form of words to use would be "the coming into force of the section," or some such words. It seems a most clumsy way of expressing what is meant. I am not at all clear why these words have to be used.

Mr. Molson: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman to be objecting to the postponement of the repeal of the Defence Regulation 56, and I should have thought the words "commencement of this section" were the best words for expressing the point which I was trying


to make. I could not say why these particular words have been used instead of "the coming into force of this section," but I shall certainly make inquiry into that. Fortunately, owing to the existence of another place, if these did turn out to be inappropriate words there would still be time for a further amendment to be made. The purpose is as I have described, and as the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is satisfied with the purpose of it, and since I can give him an assurance that these words will have that effect, I hope that he will be satisfied.

Mr. Ede: Does not this Amendment really mean that this section is coming into operation at a date later than the passing of the Bill—that it will be some time after the Bill has been passed that the section will commence to have effect? I understand that it is really concerned with the repeal of this Regulation 56. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us in what way that is to be carried out after the passing of the Bill? Will it be by the submission of an Order?

Mr. Molson: That will not be so. As originally drafted the coming into operation of this Act would immediately have repealed Defence Regulation 56. As a result of this Amendment, if carried, Defence Regulation 56 will only cease to have effect one month later. The purpose is to enable us to clear off the applications with which we are dealing at the present time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 28, leave out "passing of this Act," and insert "commencement of this section."—[Mr. Molson.]

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 32, at the end, to insert:
and the provisions of subsection (2) of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply to any such revocation as they apply to the repeal of an Act of Parliament.
(2) This section shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date of the passing of this Act.
The Interpretation Act applies automatically to Acts, but would not apply in this case because this refers to an order made under an Act. It is, therefore, necessary to provide expressly that the Interpretation Act shall apply to the Order made thereunder.

Mr. Ede: Does not subsection (2) really give us the answer to what was meant by "commencement of this section" in the previous two Amendments? Apparently the hon. Gentleman had not got as far as this in studying his briefs when rudely called here to deal with the Bill, but surely this provides that this subsection shall come into force at the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the commencement of the Act. That is the date of the "commencement of this section" as described in the previous Amendments.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I think we should have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. It is important that we should fully understand when and why this is to come into force one month later. In moving the Amendment the hon. Gentleman did not refer to subsection (2) at all, yet, as my right hon. Friend has said, that gives him the answer to the point raised on the previous two Amendments. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that this brings this part of the Bill into operation one month hence, and that that is the reason for the previous Amendments.

Mr. Molson: That is so. This is the second part. Paragraph 2 was connected with what I explained before. In my speech on this occasion I dealt with the new point which we are dealing with here, which is the reason why we are providing for the application of the Interpretation Act. It was one of the matters which I was looking into, as to why the Interpretation Act had to be applied especially in this case. I was just discovering that although it applies to an Act, it does not apply necessarily to an order made under an Act.

Mr. Wigg: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell us why, in this Amendment he used the word "beginning" but, previously, the word "commencement"? I have no objection, except that, as an English nationalist I have a marked preference for the Saxon as opposed to the Norman, and on the ground of consistency if we are using "commencement" in one place we should use it all the way through—though I prefer "beginning".

Mr. Hale: I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would reply, because I was going to follow the point made by


the English nationalist Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I must say I am happy to know that he is an English nationalist because I always thought he was one of the "Wigs on the green." Speaking to the previous Amendment, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, "I am not quite sure whether ' the commencement of the Act' or ' the commencement of the section ' would be better, but, fortunately, there is another place, and we can put it right there."
Now we have been able to explain just why "commencement of the Act" is entirely wrong. If he uses the words "commencement of the Act" in another place, he will put back the operation of this section to a date a month previous to the date on which he and his advisers want it to operate. If he reconsiders this matter and puts it right in another place we shall have to put it right again when it comes back here.

Mr. Molson: In answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), "the beginning" here is the beginning of a period, whereas "the commencement" is the operation of the provision of an Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14.—(REPEALS AND ADAPTATIONS.)

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, after "that," to insert:
(i) without prejudice to the provisions of section eight of this Act, in this subsection the expression ' statutory provision' does not include an order such as is referred to in the said section eight; and
(ii).
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to preserve any Order made under Defence Regulation 56 and kept alive under Clause 8. The general effect of this Clause is to carry out wholesale repeals, and to avoid any uncertainty on the subject we desire to make it quite plain that the wholesale repeals of Clause 14 should not affect those provisions kept alive under Clause 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(7) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of section forty-four of the Post Office Act, 1953 (which relates to the conveyance of mails), or of that section as applied by any other statutory provision.

This Amendment preserves the right of the Postmaster-General to have the payment which he makes in respect of mails, etc., fixed either by agreement or by the Transport Tribunal, and excludes the jurisdiction of the licensing authority in these cases.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like to express my thanks and the thanks of my right hon. Friend to the Standing Committee who gave this Bill so careful a scrutiny, and I should also like to express my appreciation to the House this evening for the scrutiny which it has made of the Bill this evening on Report. I must say that the scrutiny has been a little more searching than I thought it might have been since the Bill was so fully discussed upstairs. But it has not been fundamentally altered, although a number of Amendments have been made which have improved the Measure as a whole.
In Clause 2 and in the First Schedule, dealing with trams and trolley buses, the Government have made a substantial concession in view of the strong plea put forward by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association, on behalf of Glasgow Corporation. Glasgow, I should remind the House, is in a unique position because, under its Act of 1930, it was given by Parliament a monopoly of transport within the city. The substantial changes were made with the friendly assistance in this matter of the Town Clerk Depute of Glasgow.
It was strongly urged upon my right hon. Friend by the associations representing local authorities operating trams and trolley buses that the powers of the licensing authorities should be limited to the fixing of a maximum charge per mile. To do so, the Government were strongly pressed during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) and my right hon. Friend promised carefully to consider the arguments put forward. He has done so, but after a very full examination, he has come to the conclusion that it is necessary for him to maintain the general principle of the Bill in that the fares should be fixed by the licensing authorities.
We recognise that for many years the local authorities did enjoy the right to fix fares for trams and trolley buses which they ran, subject to maxima fixed by Parliament, but those powers had their origin at a time when passenger transport was much less in quantity than at present, and when a great many of the services did not go outside the boundaries of the local authorities concerned; and, furthermore, when there were no licensing authorities.
The latter were set up under the Act of 1930, and given power to fix fares charged by buses, and it appeared only right and reasonable, therefore, that that jurisdiction should be extended to trams and trolley buses. In many cases, the trams, trolley buses and the motor buses are running in competition with each other, and the only way for there to be that integration of the services, which hon. Members opposite advocate, is for control to be exercised by the same authority. The Government are also anxious to ensure that where private enterprise is in competition with trams and trolley buses there is no unfair undercutting of the fares. For that reason we feel that the Bill is not unreasonable in applying the same principles in the case of trolley buses and trams as already apply in the case of buses.
In the case of Clause 6 we have made a number of Amendments all designed to meet the views of those particularly affected by the operation of the Clause. In its amended form I think it is acceptable both to the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association as representing the providers of the facilities and also to the Traders Dock and Harbour Coordinating Committee as representing those who use them.
We had a full debate in Committee on Clause 9, in which powers are sought to enable my right hon. Friend to make regulations for controlling the numbers of seated and standing passengers who may be carried on buses, trams and trolley buses. The clause has emerged unaltered from that debate in the course of which my right hon. Friend gave—and I am authorised to repeat—a categorical assurance that we will continue for the future our established practice of consulting the trade unions in the exercise of these powers.
I am sure the House will agree that it is necessary that there should be these comprehensive powers to deal with standing passengers, but that it is right the Clause itself should not contain detailed provisions but should give my right hon. Friend and his successors power to fix the number of standing passengers according to the circumstances existing at the time. Regulations will then come before the House for approval so that they may be prayed against by hon. Members if they are dissatisfied.
There is one point on the First Schedule to which I ought to refer. We were pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) to accept certain changes there, the effect of which would have been that where an application was made by an undertaker for an alteration in the charge upon a certain route that should not involve a reconsideration by the licensing authority of the whole of the charges for that service. I gave a promise that we would look at the matter carefully before the Report stage, but, on consideration, we came to the conclusion that, although this would result in an increased burden of work in the initial stages, in the long run it would make for simplicity.
This Bill is not a large one, but it is extremely complicated, covering, as it does, every form of public inland transport, docks and harbours, ferries, and so on, as well as dealing with such diverse matters as standing passengers, railway freight rebates and accounts and returns of the minor and independent railway companies. I believe that it is a useful Measure because it is replacing wartime emergency legislation. Although there have been—and still remain—differences of opinion between hon. Members opposite and ourselves, especially on the matter of standing passengers in buses, it is none the less in general a Measure which does a great deal of tidying up and commends itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, this Bill received quite a considerable amount of attention on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs. There we had some useful debates on two subjects—the transfer of the power to fix fares for the municipalities in the case of trolleybuses and


trams to the licensing authorities and the question of standing passengers in buses. Those two matters were thoroughly thrashed out in Committee and we regret that in the latter case the Minister was unable to give us satisfaction.
On the question of municipalities fixing fares we thought the case was well made in Committee for consideration to be given to the municipalities who had that power given them in very different circumstances and which they held over a considerable period. One has to appreciate that municipalities are sensitive on this matter, that they do not like having any powers taken away from them which they have enjoyed, and that they very much regretted the necessity for this Bill.
But my hon. Friends came to the conclusion that the balance of advantage was probably on the side of the Bill as regards the transfer from the municipalities to the licensing authorities, because the number of municipalities which are now operating tramway systems or trolley buses is running down rapidly. There are not a large number which remain and those are gradually being transferred from trams or trolley buses to buses, so that over the next decade no doubt there will be a continuing substitution of trolley buses in some instances and, in the majority of cases probably, of buses for these present systems.
When buses take the place of trams and trolley buses because of their greater flexibility, because of the possibility of their routes being extended outwith the cities in which they operate, it is necessary that the licensing authorities should come into the picture so that they can ensure a measure of co-ordination between the fares which are charged by the municipalities and the fares which are charged by the private operators who may be running into the urban areas. Often the municipalities' undertakings will run side by side with private enterprise, both within and outside the cities, and it is only an overriding authority such as the licensing authority which can effect that co-ordination where it is necessary.
So, while we sympathise fully with the muncipalities and regret that here is another power which it has been found necessary to take from them, we think that in the long run the closer co-opera-

tion between the different transport systems, and, consequently, their more orderly operation, will be for the advantage of the communities served. After all, the principle of the 1930 Act, which was introduced by the minority Labour Government of the day, was one of integration and co-ordination, and it is only logical and reasonable that, in the present circumstances, that principle should be more widely applied and made general.
At the same time, we fully share the view that the exemption of Glasgow was a correct step taken by the Minister. During the Second Reading debate we on this side of the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) pressed strongly for certain exemptions being made in the case of Scotland. The arguments of my hon. Friends were listened to by the Minister, as were the representations made by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association. We are grateful, therefore, that those representations did not go unheard, and that the arguments of my hon. Friends were accepted.
In the case of Glasgow, because it is the only city operating its own transport undertaking and has a statutory monopoly within the city boundaries, it seems only right that it should have the right to fix its own fares. There can be no question of co-ordination because there is no competition and no overlapping within the city boundaries. Therefore, we are glad that it is possible for the wishes of Glasgow to be fulfilled.
The only other Clause on which I wish to comment, and on which I cannot express appreciation of the action of the Minister, is Clause 9. This Clause gives the Minister power to make regulations regarding the number of standing passengers in trolley buses and trams. He already has that power in the case of buses. As I stated on Second Reading, we cannot see the reason why this Clause should be inserted in a Bill which deals mainly with the fixing of transport charges and other matters. We consider that this is something which might well have been left until we get the comprehensive Bill which we are still awaiting.
We have been told by the Minister that it is necessary in order to tidy up the Defence Regulations, but I find that argument quite unconvincing. Under this


Clause, wide powers are given to the Minister with regard to the number of standing passengers. The number was originally five and if this Defence Regulation falls the number would automatically revert to five. During the war the number was increased to eight for obvious reasons, though there was a special agreement in London between the unions and the London Transport Executive that the number should be five.
The increase to eight took place during an exceptional situation in war-time, when it was necessary to allow a larger number of passengers to stand for obvious reasons. But now that the emergency has passed and more equipment is available, there is no reason why provincial undertakings should consider it necessary to allow an exceptional number of standing passengers. We cannot see why the number should not revert to five. We consider that this Clause is too flexible and gives too much power to the Minister.
Regard should be had to a number of factors which make things difficult for the conductors and uncomfortable for the passengers. The conductors find great difficulty in collecting fares. We know that various bus undertakings claim that if all the fares were collected they would be in a far better financial position. The amount of money lost through failure to collect all the fares is substantial. In London, it is estimated at £1½ million, or some such figure.
The more standing passengers there are, the more difficult it is for the conductors to collect all the fares. What is worse from the conductor's point of view is that he is handicapped in carrying out his duties on the rear platform of the vehicle, to ensure the safety of passengers who are boarding or alighting from the bus. I need not go into the question of the discomfort caused to passengers who are crowded together, nor the experience of many conductors who lose money from their collecting bags through theft. It is quite easy for thefts to occur in a crowded bus. It is frequent for their collecting bags to be rifled.
The wide powers which are given to the Minister in this Clause mean that he could introduce what are called standing buses. The Bill does not prevent his making a regulation which would

authorise the introduction of standing buses. Such vehicles are an unpleasant type of bus which has not sufficient accommodation for the number of passengers which the bus is authorised to carry. Up to now, such buses have carried up to 50 per cent. standing and 50 per cent. seated. Seats are provided for only half the number of passengers for which the bus caters.
Hon. Members on this side of the House, and the trade unions, share our view and consider that it is a retrograde step to introduce such buses. We have advanced considerably in the modernisation of our transport, in the improvement of the vehicles, and in the provision of comfort for the passengers. In view of the long distances which passengers in urban areas have to travel to and from their work, and the high fares, we think that passengers are entitled to the greatest comfort which the undertaking can furnish. It is not right or fair that only standing room should be provided for them when it is possible to provide seats. There are many other ways in which congestion in the vehicles and in the streets can be overcome. Before the Minister makes any regulation regarding standing buses he ought to have more consultations with the local authorities and municipal associations, and with the trade unions.
After the passengers, the unions are the most concerned in this matter. I welcome the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that he will continue to consult the unions regarding these matters, though I regret that he has not found it possible to insert in the Bill provision that the trade unions would be among the organisations or bodies entitled to consultation. We would have preferred them to be named in the Clause rather than merely be embraced in the overall phrase concerning consultation.
We do not propose to divide against the Bill, which has been treated throughout as a non-controversial Measure. It has been improved in minor particulars, and in one major particular through the giving of freedom to Glasgow in the matter of fixing fares; but we feel that there is danger in Clause 9 regarding standing passengers. We shall watch carefully any regulations made, and give them serious consideration.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I only wish to make a brief observation on the remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I feel that the attitude taken by hon. Members opposite regarding Clause 9 has been based upon a misunderstanding. The error seems to persist that the Clause in some way limits the powers of the Minister; but it is discretionary. There is nothing in this Clause which would prevent the Minister from making a regulation that the number of standing passengers should be three, two, one or even none. Surely it is better not to fix a figure as has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite several times.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Might I point out that the Minister has himself stated in reply to questions that he proposed to fix the number at eight? What I was suggesting was not that there should be a minimum figure but a maximum figure of five, for instance, but not to say that there had to be five but that would be the maximum figure.

Mr. Wilson: Surely, putting in a maximum figure would be a retrograde step under the present arrangements. We hope that the Minister will not have to come back for further powers of this kind within a reasonable time. It would be a pity to put in a particular figure, even a maximum figure. It would be better to have negotiations about it.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Gentleman reads Clause 9 he will find what it says is that the Minister can do what he likes about standing passengers and make regulations which could be prayed against. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary has given an undertaking that he will have consultations, but there is nothing to say he must consult. He could consult whatever organisation he thinks fit, do what he likes, say what he likes, make what regulations he likes and all that the House of Commons can do is reject any order he makes.

Mr. Wilson: When we were debating this Clause in Standing Committee, it became clear that the Minister was intending to carry on consultations with the trade unions.

Mr. Hale: The Bill does not say so.

Mr. Wilson: That may be, but the Minister of Transport would not carry on consultations with any but the appropriate authority. I believe that it would be retrogressive to put in a particular figure. I do not know why this figure of five has been mentioned. That was the figure before the war. We hope that from time to time some other figure might be considered more appropriate than this figure which was appropriate so long ago. I believe that the Minister is quite right in resisting any particular figure.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I want to make a brief acknowledgement to the Minister and his officials in the Ministry for the consideration which they have given to the point made by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association. He himself referred to it, as did my hon. Friend (Mr. Ernest Davies) and indicated that this was a major alteration to the Bill.
Without traversing too much of the ground that was covered on Second Reading, it should be noted that the representations were made by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association and not by Glasgow alone. They sought the concession that within the ceiling fixed for buses, trolleybuses and tramways the fixing of the fares should be left to the local authorities.
The very able officials of the Scottish Counties of Cities Association, including the representative from Edinburgh Corporation and Mr. Falconer, were able by persuasion, and, the Minister will admit, a very efficient manner of exposition, to convince the Minister that this concession was worth while. Briefly, the main contention was that whereas, in 1937, there were 9,600 in operation, today there are only 3,000 throughout the whole of the country, half of them in Scotland and one-third of those operating in Glasgow, it was on those grounds, plus the important fact that Glasgow had a virtual monopoly of its own, that convinced the Ministry that this concession should be made. I again express the thanks of the Association for the consideration shown, and wish the Bill well on its way to another place.

Mr. Wigg: My presence here is not because of an interest in this Bill but because of my interest in the Army.


However, I have been looking at the Order Paper and the Bill, and I am a little surprised, having heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that he was detained because of the diligence with which he had been reading his Order Paper and preparing his brief, to find that the Bill has two commas too many. There is a missprint on the Order Paper relating to Clause 8, page 11, line 32. This starts with two commas, ends with two commas, and has two in the middle.
If the Parliamentary Secretary had been as diligent as he suggested he was he would have discovered that. One hesitates about the rest of the Bill, although I know that the embarrassment of the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will be overcome by the Public Bill Office and the Parliamentary draftsmen. It is a fact that Officers of the House have to act as watchdogs for Ministers, and perhaps it would be as well to provide them alarm clocks so that Ministers could reach the Chamber in time, and even provide them with additional secretaries to make sure that the punctuation of Bills is correct.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I want to reinforce the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about the powers given to the Minister under Clause 9. Unlike the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) I do not like giving any Minister the power given under subsection (1, a) which provides for:
The determination by or under the regulations of the number of the seated passengers and standing passengers respectively whom any vehicle is constructed or adapted and fit to carry.
The House may be interested to recall the experiments undertaken during the war when all the cross seats were taken out and seats put around the buses which were piled with as many standing passengers as there were seated. That is the sort of thing we should not agree to under any circumstances. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the trade unions are to be consulted, but how far is that consultation going because the Parliamentary Secretary will know, as his right hon. Friend knows, there is still complete misunderstanding about something the

Minister is alleged to have been in favour when meeting the trade union about standing passengers? If there is to be consultation arising from this Bill I hope that both sides will see that when any agreements are arrived at they will be put in writing, so that there shall not be any misunderstandings.
While the Parliamentary Secretary, earlier tonight, was altering certain provisions of the Bill, he might have brought it up to date by altering the title to "Transport Charges (Omnibus Provisions) Bill," for the Bill before us does not go far enough. All that the Minister does is to give Glasgow the power to fix its fares, but to deprive the municipalities of a right which they have enjoyed for a very long time.
The Minister explained that the power to fix charges for trams and trolley-buses was given in circumstances substantially different from what they are today. What he did not tell the House was that when the licensing authorities were established under the 1930 Act—only 24 years ago—they could then have taken away this power from the municipalities which he now proposes to do. I should have thought that a Government of this kind, who talk about the power they are giving to local authorities, ought at least to have had sufficient confidence in them on this occasion to allow them to retain that power.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) called this a virtually non-controversial matter, but I want to put a slightly independent point of view. In regard to Clause 9, I wish to say that we in Westminster are sometimes in danger of judging these things from the point of view of Tottenham Court Road and of forgetting Nether Wallop. I remember when my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport introduced the original regulation limiting standing in buses. I was one of those who raised their voices in opposition to it.
Everyone knows that the driver and the conductor of a London bus have perhaps the most difficult jobs in the world. I can never understand why they are so badly paid. Their wages are about £8 10s. a week, and from the big posters which one sees about London advertising the jobs,


one would think that this was a very remunerative proposition. I am certainly not going to take on the job of conductor so long as I can get my lodging turn money in this House.
This regulation helps the conductor in one way and hinders him in another. Most disputes in which a conductor is involved arise from the fact that he has pushed somebody off, saying that the bus is full, and then there is found to be a vacant seat. It is difficult for the conductor to know when he is collecting fares below that there are two vacant seats on top of the bus, or vice versa.
It is, I agree, a most annoying experience for a man and wife to attempt to board a bus only to find that the wife is allowed on while the husband is pushed off because the bus is full, and to see his wife sailing away into the distance with only a slight idea of the point at which she is likely to alight. I have had that distressing experience, and I am sure that it is equally distressing to the conductor.
The reason why a conductor has to do that is because wandering about there may be an over-zealous policeman who may "pinch" him if he does not. I remember the days when prosecutions for overcrowding in buses were a routine feature of our experience. I remember when solicitors would threaten to call each passenger, one by one, to give evidence of the overcrowding.
It has always seemed to me that it would help the conductor and would help to deal with the problem of the last bus on a rainy night. It is all right talking about a return fare, but no one knows that there will be a storm and, therefore, more people on the bus. It is a most distressing experience to be pushed off the last bus on a wet night and told to walk several miles to the next village. It is a very difficult problem.
I suggest quite seriously that the Minister might discuss with the unions—who might very well disagree with what I say—that that might well be a discretionary variation. One might well leave it to the conductor and say that he is not bound to have more than five; by saying not fewer than five and not more than eight leaving it to the conductor's discretion. He would be protected from prosecution if he took one extra. Conductors might say

that they do not want it and that it puts too much responsibility on them, but I still think it preferable to leaving the conductor in the position that to comply with the law he has to split family parties and sometimes to refuse perhaps elderly people, on a wet night, the chance to travel home by bus.
I want to pass to Clauses 1 and 2. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his recent observations, said that this was a coordinating Measure and should, therefore, be welcome on this side of the House. He did not say that if that argument applies it should not be welcome on that side. We will forgive him that, however, because the Parliamentary Secretary is the most courteously helpful of junior Ministers, and I hope that he will forgive the little, perhaps frivolous, chat earlier in the evening. He is always careful. There was a time when he was suspected of having more or less progressive views, and can therefore talk of co-ordination more freely than could some of his colleagues.
We have to consider Clauses 1 and 2 as they are in the Bill, and have to consider them in the ambit of the transport system as it is administered today. And what a system it is, and what a mess it is. This means more applications to the licensing authorities, more contested arguments, more lawyers briefed to argue on matters about which they do not know much, and more of those miserable contests in which I took part in the days when I earned an honest livelihood. The system always struck me as an unhappy one.
I always found the traffic commissioners very able men, giving a fair hearing to the parties and trying to do justice. I am not criticising them because they are lay tribunals. I do not take the view that there is any virtue in either the law or the lay tribunal as such; I consider them on their merits. But this is adding more complexity to the system. It is exposing the whole hollowness of the Tory transport policy to come here and talk of a little initiative when they have split all transport into sections—and we are today told that they are to split it still more. It is really a mockery of the House.
In these days, when I should have thought the genuine co-ordination of transport, the national ownership of the


bus industry and of road and rail traffic was essential—but I cannot pursue that, Mr. Speaker, otherwise I am sure you will rule me out of order. At the same time, it is rather a tragedy that in times like these, when only a day or two ago we were told in this House that the dropping of a single bomb on London would destroy and lay flat every main line station in this city and leave the whole system in chaos, we should be introducing and passing a Bill which provides for competitive trolley buses to have their fares adjusted outside the boundaries of cities and so on.
It sometimes seems that we are spending a good deal of time in talking about minor matters, patching up an old and outworn system, introducing little remedies here, little amendments there, touching up this, and touching up that and leaving the whole vast complexity and chaos of a vital industry completely untouched and unamended. I have tried to put this quite modestly, speaking purely as an individual expressing an opinion. Having expressed that opinion I shall not attempt to pursue it further, because I have no wish to delay the House at this time of night.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I thought I would add just a few words to what has already been said on both sides of the House on the Bill, and a word about some of the Clauses which have not, as yet, got the support to which perhaps they are entitled. I would, in particular, congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend on Clause 15 (2). Hon. Members will see that that does not extend this Bill to Northern Ireland.
Before I come to a particular constituency point, I should like to say why I, as one who has come from that part of the country, appreciate that point. If I may call the attention of the House to Clause 2 (6), hon. Members will see that this, unfortunately, converts into tramways what would be otherwise some of the most historic railways in Northern Ireland. I mention the Clogher Valley Railway, with a road crossing it every quarter of a mile, thus preventing along those roads excessive speeds for vehicles. There is the tramway which exists at Portrush—the famous electric tramway, and, I believe, the first of its kind in the world.
Having just made these nostalgic reminiscences, I wish to say a word from a constituency point of view on Clause 9, a matter which, quite rightly, has interested many hon. Members on this side of the House. Under subsection (3), the Minister
shall consult with such representative organizations as he sees fit.
I think we ought perhaps to have from the Minister, before we finally leave the Bill, a further indication of what sort of organisations he thinks it would be desirable to consult.
There is no particular virtue in it, but ever since I have been a Member of Parliament for Hornchurch I happen to have been one of the vice-presidents of the South-East Essex Traffic Advisory Committee, a body which has to deal with the complicated problems of transport in South-East Essex. It is a question not only of vehicles, but of areas, and there may be a question of allowing more people to stand on one particular section of a route.
One of the problems we are faced with in Hornchurch and areas of this sort is that of the last bus, and London Transport do not, to our minds, very often seem to fit in their schedule with the various events, the very episodic contingencies, which affect the people of the area. There may be a sale, an opportunity to go and shop in the neighbouring Romford, there may be a football match, or something of that sort, in which there is a rush on the buses. These are problems which we are all the time discussing in the South-East Essex Transport Advisory Committee.
If I may digress for a moment, I regret, and I am sure the House regrets, that the reference to Northern Ireland took place before the entry of the two hon. Gentlemen who represent that part of the world. But I hope they will contribute, and say a word or two as to why they feel that this Measure is particularly applicable in not being applied to Northern Ireland.
In areas such as Hornchurch this is a great problem, of what is the appropriate number of people who should stand or who should be accommodated in a bus. It would be quite wrong if we on this side of the House were to approach the matter on behalf of the passenger, because, after all, he is travelling in the bus


for only one journey. The person really affected is the conductor, who travels throughout the day, who has duties to perform, and therefore, in order to accommodate someone travelling once it is wrong to impose obligations and difficulties on the conductor, who is working very long hours. He works for long hours for, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, inadequate remuneration. Therefore, his case should be a paramount consideration.
When one is considering what organisations to consult, it seems to me that one should not only consult on the passenger side such organisations as are dealing with the matter nationally; for, this is not merely a problem of the London Transport area as that is generally understood. It is also a problem for those areas on the periphery, and it is a problem affecting the Green Line services.
When the Minister is dealing with this whole subject, I hope that he will give some consideration to the representations of such organisations as the South East Essex Traffic Advisory Committee to which six, or, I think, seven, local authorities send representatives, and whose meetings hon. Members of this House, so far as their other duties permit, attend. Such bodies as old-age pensioners' associations and the manager of the Ford works are represented, and a whole series of problems arise. It is a highly efficient method of dealing with transport questions.
Between 1940 and 1945, when I occupied a very junior position on the Treasury Bench—unpaid, unfortunately—I had discussions with the members of the group for which I was responsible on this very problem. We had a meeting at which representatives of London Transport attended, and we went into the matter of how far traffic advisory committees existed. In certain areas these local committees exist, and in others they do not, but they are highly desirable bodies, and if the Minister would say that, among many other organisations whose representations he will consider there will be the local traffic advisory committee, that would be an additional stimulus for the promotion of such bodies.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that, among the bodies which will be consulted are these local organisations; although the South East Essex Traffic Advisory Committee is not purely a local body. It deals with about a quarter of a million people, and I hope that the Minister will at any rate consult organisations such as this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1952–53

Resolutions reported,

I. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1953, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £6,237,443 6s. 3d. viz.:



£
s.
d


Total Surpluses
8,282,978
14
2


Total Deficits
2,045,535
7
11


Net Surplus
£6,237,443
6
3


And Whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

(1)the application of the realised surpluses on Vote 2. Subhead F and Vote 8 for Army Services to meet the net deficit of £625,167 11s. 3d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met from issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949;
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

II. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1953, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £24,597,032 12s. 1d., viz.:



£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
36,930,296
8
5


Total Deficits
12,333,263
16
4


Net Surplus
£24,597,032
12
1

And Whereas the Lord Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:
(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £4,915,092 11s. 10d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949;
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.'

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 167–204.]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. James Simmons: We were, unfortunately, prevented from dealing with this important matter by the premature moving of the Closure on Monday after only four contributions had been made to the debate. It has become the fashion in this House to attempt to prevent adequate discussion of the affairs of the Army. We have had no debate on the Army Annual Act for three years. Debates on the Army Estimates have been confined to the debate on Vote A and as a result of the inadequate debates on the Army Estimates themselves we are now presented with the Appropriation Account.
I submit that the Appropriation Account is a direct result of inadequate discussion in this House in the original discussion of these Votes before us today. Had there been more adequate discussion there would obviously have been more adequate accounting; we would not have had so many surpluses on one side and deficits on the other. I understand we are now discussing the Motion that the application of these sums be sanctioned by way of what is called virement. The House has a right to object to these sums being sanctioned by virement.

Mr. Speaker: The House has a right to object to this matter being handled in this way as a matter of accountancy, but not on account of anything that has been done by the Army or the War Office.

Mr. Simmons: We presume that we are able to suggest that some other method of dealing with this problem should be used. It is in our minds to suggest that an excess Vote would be a more honest, straightforward and direct method of dealing with the problem. We are presented with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General each year. The material in the Report leads us to form the opinion that this method of virement by which things are covered up and by which one figure is put against another without any discussion of details, helps to cover the scandals brought to our notice in the Report. Unfortunately, we are given scant opportunity of discussing that Report. We can only do so indirectly and by reference to the fact that it covers the accounts we are now discussing.
These disclosures are disquieting and the very method of accountancy to which we are objecting enables this kind of thing to go on and the "Army Crichel Downs" to be perpetrated. It enables the stocktaking of the Army to be done in such a way as to receive the condemnation of the Comptroller and Auditor General and then be covered up by the technical method of virement.
It is distressing to those who have the well-being of the Army at heart to think that, for instance, the Army can be rooked, as it was rooked by the contractors in the Canal Zone, which is disclosed in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report. If we had an Excess Vote instead of this method of virement, we could have a full discussion.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: But we have not got art Excess Vote. We are now dealing with the report of a Resolution of a Committee of the whole House as to why these sums should be transferred in this way. That would not allow us to enter into matters of the Canal Zone, and so on. It is purely a question of accountancy.

Mr. George Wigg: If you will allow me to make a submission—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Has the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) finished?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? Very well.

Mr. Wigg: We were in some difficulty during the Committee stage because we then based our arguments on the rulings Oven two years ago. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in his wisdom, then admitted to the Committee that he had misled the House in 1952 and therefore, half-way through that stage, we were placed in the difficulty of the Chair having changed its ruling. Do I understand that you too, Sir, are varying your ruling to conform with that of the Chairman of Ways and Means? Or it may well be that he is acting under your direction?
As I understood his ruling in the Committee, my hon. Friend was certainly in order in arguing that the Government should not have proceeded by virement but should have come to the House with an Excess Vote. If the Chairman of Ways and Means was correct in his revised ruling, it would also seem that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is very closely conforming to what the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled two nights ago.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is any real difference between us. As I have said before, this is purely an accounting question. The late lamented Mr. Monk introduced this Resolution at some time in the last century—I believe in an almost empty House which agreed with him—and since then this procedure has gone on. But I would like to impress on the House that it is purely a matter of accountancy.
If I may put it another way, it is a Treasury matter entirely. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State for War and. as he is not responsible for it, I could not allow him to reply. In my judgment it would be unfair to use this opportunity to introduce, even by a side-wind, any criticisms of the Army to which no reply could be given. There are other opportunities, on the Estimates, and so on, where a Minister of the appropriate Department can be challenged and will have to reply, but this is not such an occasion.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir, we have closely followed the reasoning of the late Mr. Monk. We have also followed the rulings which have been given on six

occasions by Chairmen of Ways and Means, one of which said that we were only in order if we discussed accountancy. In 1952, I confined my arguments wholly to that point and yet, two nights ago, the Chairman of Ways and Means said that I must not use the same arguments as I used in 1952 when, in fact, I had followed slavishly the ruling you are now giving.

Mr. Speaker: I think what I have told the House about the position is the true one. It is most unusual to have a debate on the Report stage of a Resolution with which a Committee of the whole House has agreed as a matter of accountancy.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to delay the House, Sir, hut, with respect, although my experience of the House goes back for only nine years, never until this week have we had the pleasure of having the attendance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Never before, in either a Labour Administration or in this Administration, has this occurred. This is the first occasion that the Financial Secretary has come to the House. Always before a Service Minister has replied.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that the Financial Secretary was not in attendance when this was discussed in Committee?

Mr. Wigg: On any occasion when this has come before the House the debates have always been answered by a Service Minister.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite proper that a Service Minister should attend on Supply and on the Estimates. That is their duty, and they are the people to be criticised. But this is purely an accounting matter for the Treasury, which is quite different from a debate on Supply.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, I would refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 2nd July, 1948 Vol. 452, col. 2475. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) was the Under-Secretary of State for War and he gave an account of the procedure under the process known as virement and went into some detail. From that time onwards our discussions have always been answered by a Service Minister, including the discussion in 1952.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot, of course, answer for what took place in 1952, in


committee, or in 1948. But I am quite clear that this is purely a financial matter, one for the Treasury and not the Service Ministers.

Mr. Hale: On our discussions on Monday night I ventured to call the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the fact that the whole record shows that on previous occasions on the Appropriation Accounts a reply was made by a Service Minister. We have that happy position in 1951, and in 1952, when, unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) who held a junior Ministerial position at the War Office in 1952—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member held a Ministerial position at the time and I thought that he was at the War Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," the Ministry of Supply."] I thought that he replied as Minister in 1952—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has all the records with him and can check my recollection—

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I replied in 1952.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged. The Under-Secretary has made my point, even if he corrected my recollection. That has been the habitual practice.
I am raising this in no sense of criticism. On Monday night my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) addressed the Committee at some length and was not interrupted by the Chair. I addressed the Committee, and the Chairman of Ways and Means was good enough to call me to order and say that I was not displaying the same ingenuity as my hon. and learned Friend. I did point out then that my hon. and learned Friend was not displaying ingenuity, but indignation, and that he was advancing a reasoned argument.
He argued that we should not have this process of virement because it was covering up certain financial scandals discussed in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which the House had no other opportunity of discussing, and therefore it was appropriate that on this matter we should discuss the question of virement from the point of view

that it was inappropriate to use it as it was a wrong method of accountancy to use in a democracy. I admit that the last words widened the discussion, but I submit that that was the clear ruling from the Chair on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: I have always thought it possible to argue against these Resolutions on accountancy grounds. But it is purely an accountancy matter for the Treasury. When the hon. Member uses the argument that they will prevent all sorts of criticisms which might be introduced into a debate on Supply, I think that that is going too far. We cannot enter upon the merits of the points of criticism in this case, to reply to which not a Service Minister, but a Treasury Minister would be required.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir. Will you look at HANSARD for 1952, Vol. 502, col. 2592, which shows that the debate was replied to by the Under-Secretary of State for Air? Previously, the points we had advanced were rather along the lines of those which have been raised by my hon. Friends. Other points were answered by the Under-Secretary of State for War. On the Report stage there was no debate. The Resolutions were agreed to. I would, therefore, have thought that my hon. Friend was strictly in order in raising the question of the disadvantage, from the financial point of view, of proceeding by virement instead of by Excess Vote.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As I understand, the procedure is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for virement by Treasury Minute, and for this Motion to be required in confirmation of that act. It seems that the procedure with which we are concerned is purely financial procedure. It is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Chairman of Ways and Means expressed the view on Monday night that the ruling of 1952 had been too wide, and that the correct view was the one he expressed on Monday night. With respect, I submit that the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War was able to make a reply in 1952 is not material to what the right hon. Gentleman said in that ruling.

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was present in 1952?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not suppose it will be in order for me to do so, but I was present.

Mr. Speaker: It is rather an ancient form of procedure. First, there is a Treasury Minute sanctioning the transference of surpluses to pay off deficits between funds. Then, if my recollection is right, the Minute goes before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is so. The Public Accounts Committee has reported on that Minute and expressed its views on the appropriateness of the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Then it comes before us in this form, giving the sanction of the Committee, and then of the House, to the Minute.

Mr. Wigg: One of the rulings of the Chairman of Ways and Means which I quoted to the Chairman of Ways and Means on Monday night was a decision, I think by the present Lord Milner, that we could only discuss accountancy. In 1952 I did that. I discussed the form in which the accounts were presented. On Monday night I quoted what the Under-Secretary of State for War said in 1952, as follows:
I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the archaic form of the accounts. I agree with a great deal of what he has said. We may remember that 18 months or two years ago a body of opinion in the country thought the whole system of national accounting was out of date and that, instead of being on a cash basis, it should be on an income and expenditure basis.
He went on to say:
I do not think there is much hope of being able to select one facet or slice of the national accounts for this purpose, but I will take up the question again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2577.]
On Monday, the Chairman of Ways and Means said:
If I allowed that, I apologise for being negligent, for I ought not to have done so.
And, later, he said:
I am ruling myself out of order, and apologise. I am very sorry I was wrong then, but I think I am right now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 181–183.]

12 midnight

Mr. Speaker: I have had handed to me a report of what transpired in Committee and I see the Chairman said that the Question was that the application of certain sums should be sanctioned. Now

we are asked to agree with the Committee in saying they should be sanctioned. That is to say, the Committee approved the use, in this case, of a form of accounts setting off deficits of some of the Department's Vote against surpluses in other Votes. If we now decide against that, the only result would be that the Department would have to effect the same result by introducing an Excess Vote.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir, if this, the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is debatable, and I take it it is debatable, then one of two things must be right. Either, we can debate the matter in the same form we debated it in Committee, or, the Chairman of Ways and Means has made yet another mistake and we have to debate the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) along the precise lines that the Chairman of Ways and Means directed we should conduct the Committee stage last Monday.

Mr. Speaker: I have no desire whatever to prevent the House from scrutinising on all proper occasions the spending Departments, but I do not think that this is an occasion on which it can be done. That is all I am telling the House. I think if the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) can direct his speech to the accounting point I have mentioned, I think the House will listen to him. But, it is a general principle, that should be observed as a matter of order, that if no effective reply can be made, then it is not an appropriate occasion to make a speech. I do not mean an effective reply judged on its merits, because that is a matter of opinion, but, if the Minister would be out of order talking on it, so is the House.

Sir William Darling: Is there no limit to the number of points of order which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can put? I have heard him put seven.

Mr. Speaker: I have tried to explain my view on the matter. If I am wrong the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can take some steps about it. But, so far as I know, I am right and I would ask the House to follow the ruling I have given.

Mr. Wigg: There is obviously no limit to the number of points of order that can


be put. What we are trying to establish here is something that every hon. Member should have thought right because one day hon. Members opposite will be in Opposition.
I would submit, as a Service Member who is concerned about the efficiency of the Services, that we should discuss Estimates at every stage when they come before the House. We have conformed strictly to the rulings given by various Chairmen of Ways and Means—and I make no complaint at all as to that. He made a mistake and his ruling in 1952 was wrong. During the rest of the debate we adhered to the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means last Monday. If there is yet another ruling, would you be kind enough to make clear what it is, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I thought I had made it as clear as I possibly could and I do not think further words of mine can make it clearer.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Is it not a breach of decorum of the House for applause to take place when you are giving a ruling, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not catch the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Hale: Is it not a recognised breach of the decorum of the House, and a proceeding to be deplored, that there should be applause when Mr. Speaker is giving a ruling?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any applause.

Mr. Simmons: Before that rather long interval I was trying to put forward the point of view that the method of accountancy was wrong. I do not know whether I would be out of order in describing it as dishonest, but it is certainly misleading. I regret that we cannot have any reply from the Under-Secretary of State for War, whose courtesy in other debates is well known and appreciated by those of us who occasionally have to cross swords with him.
In deploring the method of accountancy I think we can claim once again that the dead hand of the Treasury is clamping down and preventing adequate discussion of matters which are of vital import to the officers and men serving in Her Majesty's

Forces. We have the appropriation Account covered by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I realise that we cannot discuss his Report in detail on this occasion, but it does prove that the present method of accountancy is inadequate for we are told that reliable stocktaking has not taken place since 1950 in one Department. Therefore, we are entitled to ask that instead of the Government coming forward, as they have done on this occasion, with this method of virement, they should be honest and come to the House with an Excess Vote so that we could go more properly into detail.

Mr. Bing: When Mr. Monk first introduced his Motion dealing with this particular matter it was, unfortunately counted out because there were insufficient hon. Members in the House. Looking around at this moment we are possibly in the same position.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: Divide.

Mr. Bing: There may be sufficient hon. Members on this occasion.
I thought I might call the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact and leave it to him to take such action as he thought fit. My point is that we should not agree with the decision the Committee came to. It is not for me to make any criticism of the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the original Motion was set down, in Committee, but it is unfortunate that his officials shortened the discussion because if it had gone its full length we should not have insisted on discussing the matter at this stage as the Committee would have decided it was not the appropriate method of raising this matter.
I base myself, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, entirely on the words which you read out, and which were the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I wish to develop a type of argument to which it would be possible for the Under-Secretary of State for War to reply. I appreciate that it is improper to advance any argument to which an hon. Member who is attacked, whether he be on the Front Bench or on a back bench, is not in a position to reply. That is a courtesy which we should all extend one to the other. On


the other hand, the House has the duty to safeguard those people who are in the Army, and to see, for instance, that they are not charged excessive prices. For that reason I was particularly sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North—

Brigadier Clarke: There is no Member for Portsmouth, North.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a brigadier. When I was in the Army, I was always under the impression that the officers looked after the welfare of the men, and, therefore, I think it unfortunate that perhaps one of the most distinguished officers—

Brigadier Clarke: May I suggest that if the Army had anything to do with this matter the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be here now.

Mr. Bing: Were I to reply to that remark, I might be tempted to bring the debate rather wide.
We ought all to try and combine to see how we can adapt the rules of order so as to discuss the matter within the purview laid down, and, at the same time, to see that the soldier is not charged twice for his N.A.A.F.I. meals. We should all combine to try and arrive at that situation.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who, of course, attained a far higher rank in the Army than I did, is quite right to call attention to that fact. It is probably one of the few things to which he can call attention. I hope that we shall have his co-operation, and that he will join hon. Members on this side in trying to find an appropriate method by which we can discuss this matter. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, this Motion is drawn in a comparatively narrow ambit.
I suggest that a grave error of judgment was made by the Treasury in ever putting forward this minute. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury advanced what was, one would have thought, a most ingenious and effective argument in which he said that the House really had nothing to complain about because, of course, this whole matter was an appropriate one to be dealt with by way of virement would have been discussed when the Estimates came up. But, of course, the Committee of Public Accounts had not reported at that stage, and it

was not until hon. Members had in their hands the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts that they were in a position to judge whether or not—in view of everything which the Committee had said, and taking into account its full report—it was, in fact, acting in a proper or reasonable way in the Report it made.
I think it proper that when an hon. Member quarrels with a decision of the Committee of the House, he ought to say so. I think that the Committee of Public Accounts was in error when it suggested that this matter was a proper one to be dealt with by way of virement. I also think that the Committee of the whole House erred when it came to the same conclusion, and I believe that on Report the few who object to that ought to have an opportunity to be heard and of saying why they think that the Committee of Public Accounts was wrong, and why they think that the Treasury minute was wrong, and why they think that the Committee of the whole House on Monday was wrong. That is the argument, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I develop it.
When the original Monk Resolution was introduced, it was intended to deal with comparatively small sums, hundreds, thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of pounds, which were involved between one Vote and another. What has happened in this particular matter is that there has been an entire difference, and a change of policy which has resulted in there being a very large surplus. That has been the result of a change of policy. Like all policy conducted by hon. Gentlemen opposite it is of a somewhat involuntary nature. A great deal of the sum arises from the failure of their recruiting campaign—

12.15 a.m.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled, Sir, that it would be inappropriate and out of order for me to reply. Surely it is out of order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make imputations about the Army to which I cannot reply.

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order. I have already ruled quite firmly on that, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will conform to what I have said.

Mr. Bing: With respect I thought that I had, Sir.
If the Minister is in difficulty in knowing how to reply I might be permitted to say that if my argument that this should not be dealt with by virement is wrong surely the Minister can reply and say that the very arguments which were put from this side as to why the matter should be dealt with in this way are incorrect and wrong. If he says that these surpluses have arisen other than on a general policy basis surely he can be heard to say so. He has been heard to say so on the last four, five or six occasions when we have discussed this.
We have brought it up now on Report because this is a highly-important matter. A great deal of public money is involved. Under those circumstances it has been thought by my hon. Friends, with the welfare of the Army at stake, that this is a matter which we should not let pass. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, who has always replied before is capable of doing as each of his predecessors has done.
All he need say in reply is that we on this side are mistaken in thinking the matter could be dealt with by Excess Vote and that it should be dealt with by virement because these are trivial matters. That is the argument which he should put to the House—that the £8 million which we are discussing is a mere bagatelle and that we have miscalculated to the extent of £2 million on one particular Vote is neither here nor there. He can get up and say that. Why not?
He says that this is a matter of accountancy, but one of the matters we have to consider is the sort of Report we have from the accountant. The House has employed the Comptroller and Auditor General. We know what he thought of these accounts. We may not perhaps be allowed to say so, but if we are discussing it on an accountancy basis is it not odd that we cannot discuss it on the basis of the Report of the accountant whom the House employs?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member is going far away from the Question.

Mr. Bing: With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Brigadier Clarke: Go on, go on.

Mr. Bing: I am much obliged for the encouragement of the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps he wishes to speak—it is always the excuse of the hon. and gallant Member. That is what is always said at a court-martial.

Brigadier Clarke: Some of us have never been court-martialled.

Mr. Bing: If it is not out of order, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member.
If one looks at the account as a whole one sees a total surplus of no less than £8 million. That is a large sum of money, and while it would be inappropriate for me to refer to the Vote in which it is given one sees that there has, in fact, been a miscalculation by the Army as to what the cost of the Service as a whole was to be. It is a miscalculation of such magnitude that had the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated it he could have given a rise to the old-age pensioners for which hon. Gentlemen opposite have agitated with such force.

Mr. Speaker: Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot introduce all these matters.

Mr. Bing: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely trying to advance some argument that this matter should not be dealt with on the accountancy basis, on which it is now proposed that it should be dealt with. The argument I was putting, which I thought was valid, was that if one has a surplus of no less than £8,282,976, and a deficit of as big a sum as £2,045,000, it is quite wrong that these two huge sums should be set against each other.
The proper course is to come here and ask for an Excess Vote, to be credited in another year, for the deficits, and to devote the proceeds of this to the social legislation which otherwise we would expect. One of the duties of this House is to try to investigate and keep a watch over public expenditure, and when there are deficits to the extent of £2 million, that is surely a matter which should be subject to examination by this House, because we cannot discuss it in any detail when those particular deficits arise. The argument which I was hoping would be adopted by the House against the view which is taken by the Committee was


that this is a matter which should be dealt with by Excess Vote.
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he has heard the arguments which some of my hon. Friends want to put, will consider this matter. I am glad now to see the Patronage Secretary here. He should remember that if he stifles normal and proper opportunities for Parliamentary discussion, then hon. Members are bound to seek by other means methods of raising these matters, which are of the greatest importance. I would say for my hon. Friends on this side of the House that he will not do better by any curtailment of this particular discussion. They are bound to take up more time of the House than they would if the Financial Secretary took the right course. Let him withdraw this Resolution and put down for an Excess Vote. Let us have half a day to discuss it. Can we not have half a day to discuss the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is really a long way from the Question before the House.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I need not go into it, because the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows exactly the standards which are contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. I ask him to let us have an opportunity to discuss them, to decide who is responsible for them—whether it is this side or the other side. Surely this is the wrong procedure for dealing with this particular Estimate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I explained the procedure on this Resolution to the Committee on Monday night, and the House will not want me to repeat what I said. The point we are concerned with is a very narrow one and is very simple. It is this: for the year with which we are concerned, 1952–53, on the different Army Estimates the final outturn showed there was a total surplus of about £8 million on some Votes, and a little over £2 million deficit on others.
What is proposed by this Resolution is that so much as is necessary of the surplus on the Votes where there is a surplus, should be applied to make up the deficiency on the Votes where there is a deficiency. In this matter there has been followed the normal procedure of provisional authority for virement, followed by examination by the Public

Accounts Committee, who recommended that virement be authorised and saw no reason why the House should not sanction virement and approve this Motion in Committee of the whole House, and on Report.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) sought to suggest that there was something dishonest—in fact, he used the word—and that the Government was lacking in straightforwardness and various other commendable characteristics in having recourse to this procedure. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) stated that this procedure was applicable only to small sums; I think that same point was put forward on Monday. He claimed that it was applicable only when small amounts were involved, but in the light of all this, it is very interesting to note what has happened in recent years. A Resolution in the same form dealing with the Army Vote was taken during five years that the party of hon. Members opposite was in office; the only difference is that the sums involved were somewhat larger.
In the face of that, it really is the most complete nonsense, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, to try to make this have the appearance of some new and scandalous procedure; something designed to hide scandals within the Army accounts. The simple fact is that this is the normal procedure carried out since it was suggested by the late lamented Mr. Monk. It was carried out for five years of the late Government's tenure of office and that discloses the complete hollowness of the case which it is sought to argue tonight.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch referred to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Army Appropriation Account for 1952–53 and suggested that our procedure was a wrong one because it did not permit items in that Report to be debated in the House. But that Report is still with the Public Accounts Committee, which has not yet reported.
If I may summarise, this is the normal procedure, simply dealing in a straightforward and traditional manner with the


Army surplus and deficit, and this is not the appropriate occasion for hon. Members seeking to raise arguments with respect to Army accounts, nor for criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War; and the more so, since you, Sir, having ruled that he cannot reply.

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. May I ask whether the Opposition have earned their £2 for today?

Mr. Bing: Further to that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order, order. I did not accept what the hon. and gallant Member said as a point of order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 0.

Division No. 202.]
AYES
[12.30 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Alport, C. J. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Redmayne, M.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Heath, Edward
Remnant, Hon. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Higgs, J. M. C.
Renton, D. L. M


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hope, Lord John
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Scott, R. Donald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooks, Henry (Hampstead)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bullard, D. G.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Soames, Capt. C


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Kaberry, D
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Storey, S.


Colegate, W. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Summers, G. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Crouch, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Vane, W. M. F.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Wall, P. H. B.


Drewe, Sir C.
Maude, Angus
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wellwood, W.


Fell, A.
Neave, Airey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fort, R.
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Foster, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wills, G.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Glover, D.
Page, R. G.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


NIL


TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. George Wigg and Mr. Bing.


Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Wigg: Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attach the importance to the matter we are discussing that we do on this side of the House. One does not expect to find a very large number of Members who would interest themselves sufficiently to stay up night after night to delve into the question of the financial control of the Services. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury


seemed to think that he had scored a point by saying that for many years past this has been the practice of previous administrations.
I do not want to trespass one comma outside the rules of order, but it seems a little unfair to put the whole onus on the Labour Party for the reform of the financial control and the discipline of the fighting Services. Hon. Gentlemen opposite many of them with distinguished records in all three Services, had ample opportunities during the years 1945 to 1951 to do something about the reform of the Army and Air Force, but nothing was done. It was left to us and, when we got into Opposition, we started to do the job that an Opposition ought to do.
The steps that we have taken as regards the Services again tonight, we shall continue to take, because we are making no idle point. We do this year after year because, in my submission, this goes right to the root of the Army particularly. I shall be out of order to say more on that Service because we have passed the Army Resolution, and in my submission all the three fighting Services are not a subject for virement and I will say why.
Other spending Departments of the Government receive a Vote from this House and, the sum having been granted and the purposes having been laid down by the process of the House, the Minister in charge of the Department is then free to get on with the job. He has the money, as it were, in one big "dollop." But that is not so as regards the three Services. The money voted to the Army, Navy and Air Force is given under specific heads. There are no fewer than 11 Votes here which are involved. They include Pay; Reserve and Auxiliary Services; Air Ministry; Civilians at Outstations; Movements Supplies: Aircraft and Stores—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has expressed the hope that he will keep in order. I have to advise him that he is now out of order. The only thing that the Committee agreed was that the application of such sums be sanctioned, and we are now asked to agree with the Committee. To go into details would be out of order.

Mr. Wigg: I do not wish to go into details, but we are in some difficulty because, with respect, we are getting different Rulings from different occupants of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now getting a Ruling from me.

Mr. Wigg: May I take that I shall be in order if I confine myself to the accounting? That is the Ruling which was given by Mr. Speaker, and that is what I am endeavouring to do.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would be out of order. All that we can deal with now is that the application of such sums be sanctioned. He can argue that it should be on an Excess Vote, 'but that is as far as he can go.

Mr. Wigg: I realise that it would be grossly improper to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, with respect, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this with Mr. Speaker, because once again we have been given two distinct Rulings. Mr. Speaker said that we could talk about accounting. The accounting of this money was the only matter which it would be in order to discuss, and HANSARD will show that tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no doubt that it was the method of accounting that could be discussed, whether it should be done in this way or by an Excess Vote.

Mr. Wigg: I am dealing with the method of accounting and it is my submission that the method of virement should not be applied within the Services. The doctrine of the late Mr. Monk is all right when applied to other Departments, but when it is applied to the Service Departments it is wrong, as I shall endeavour to point out without going into details. I was reading the various accounting heads under which the money is split up and I wish to argue that this method of accounting, which had its origin in the history of the Army, has grown up mainly because it has not been challenged.
We have pleaded during the past years that the Treasury ought not to use this method. I am making no charge of impropriety. I have never gone beyond the point of saying that the system is archaic. This system has no relevance to the existing needs of the Services. On mabili-


sation this method would not be used. The whole system changes on mobilisation. In 1952, when I made this plea, I received a promise that the matter would be looked into. My plea is that this system is completely and utterly out of date. I ask the Government not to treat this as something which has happened late at night, because we are not responsible for when this is put on the Order Paper.
12.45 a.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it as a cri de coeur from those of us who are passionately interested in the efficiency of the Services. He need not do it in the light of day if he does not wish to. He could set up a Departmental Committee. I urge the Financial Secretary to ask the Chancellor to look at it not from the point of view of the Treasury, but from the point of view of the Services. Why is it that civilians are top dogs in the Service Departments? Why are they there? They are there to see the money spent, and to account for it in accordance with the will of Parliament. The main job of the finance departments of the Services is not to ensure that there are fidelity checks. Certainly, they do that. The would not for a moment allow a penny of public money to be mis-spent.
The job in which they are trained at the Air Ministry before they go out to the commands, the regulations which are framed, the tradition in which high-ranking air officers have grown up, is that of accountability for public money to Parliament. When at the end of an accounting period it becomes necessary for money to be transferred from one Vote to another, Minutes are exchanged between the Air Ministry and the Treasury, the process of virement is gone through, and the matter comes before the House. Every hon. Member concerned about the day to day effects of this particular method of financial control knows, and every Service Minister knows, that this is a strangehold on the efficiency of the Services.
Air officers whose training has cost thousands of pounds spend their time wondering when the Treasury will come down on them. This is the last stage in a long drawn process which you, Mr. Speaker, have reminded us, starts with the Estimates Committee, goes to the

Comptroller and Auditor-General, and comes to the House in this form. We have pleaded at all stages for reform. I make no apology for having been outvoted by 120 tonight. I shall keep on pleading until I get some Government, or Service Minister, to back me up, and to say that it is time that this system, born 200 or 300 years ago, no longer has a purpose, and ought to be altered.
I well remember reading, when I was a young soldier, a series of lectures given some 30 years ago by one of the financial pundits of the War Office, Sir Charles Harris. I have quoted him in the House on other occasions. He was conducting what was, I think, the first course for young officers arranged by the London School of Economics. Officers from all branches of the Services were taken there to be instructed in methods of financial control. Those lectures are well worth reading. They are, I believe, available in the Library. Sir Charles explained the various stage of the financial procedure to these officers, starting with the preparation of the Estimates.
I freely acknowledge what I learned from Sir Charles Harris's lectures, although I only had the pleasure of reading them. He thought that in the First World War, when the War Office got into such a terrible mess—and it then included the Royal Flying Corps and it was there that the Air Ministry was born, and this system we are now discussing had its birth—this system was strangling the efficiency of the Services and in his last years of public service—and very distinguished years they were—he did his best to try and get this system altered. He failed, partly because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is rather a long way from Mr. Monk.

Mr. Wigg: I would not be surprised if Sir Charles, when he was a young man, perhaps had advice of his ingenious system. I think he retired about 1920 and would not have been too young to know something about Monk's Resolution.
I am not asking the Financial Secretary to read Sir Charles Harris's lectures, although he could read them with some profit and certainly the Secretary of State for War could learn from them a little bit about the financial control of the War Office. I am asking the Financial Secretary to believe that the few of us here


tonight have an honest and sincere purpose, the same honest and sincere purpose we had about the Army and Air Force Acts, and I am extremely proud of the part I played, although I know that some hon. Gentlemen were as hostile then as now over being kept up, although I make no apology for that because this is a contribution to the efficiency of the Services.
The Financial Secretary should recognise this system as being all right when applied to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Works, but no good when one is concerned with the Services' efficiency, particularly when you have a change from one system to another. I would ask him not to set up a Select Committee or make any stirring statement tonight. All I am asking him is between now and next year to have another look at this and see whether it is in the best interests of the Services. If he comes back next year, and says he has had another look at it and is quite satisfied, I promise to go home early when it comes before the House.
Finally, I would make this point: we have got into great difficulty on this side of the House because of various rulings which have been given from the Chair. It may be we are stupid and have not understood as clearly as we might have done. Certainly, before Monday, we made an effort to follow the rulings then given and on Monday we were in some difficulties because the Chairman of Ways and Means told us he was wrong. That was an embarrassment because we had based ourselves on the doctrine enunciated by the Chairman of Ways and Means in 1952. We accepted that and directed ourselves to the revised ruling. Then you, Mr. Speaker, gave us another ruling tonight. Of course, we accepted your ruling and chose our arguments. Then you went away, after a little while, and back came Mr. Deputy-Speaker and we got another operation.
I am not challenging you, Sir, but asking you whether you would be kind enough to recognise the difficulties of back benchers and look at the rulings that have been given from 1945 onwards, and at the proceedings of the Committee stage, and tonight. Perhaps when you have had an opportunity of considering it, you would give a ruling which would guide us in these matters in future years.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TOURIST INDUSTRY (HOTELS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir C. Drewe.]

12.55 a.m.

Mr. E. M. Cooper-Key: My object tonight is to raise certain points relating to the hotel and tourist industry, and to suggest some ways in which the Board of Trade and other Ministries can assist the solution of their difficulties. The hotel industry of this country, which includes the catering industry, is one of the largest. It employs about 750,000 workers and operates 18,000 high-class hotels suitable for tourists, 4,300 establishments offering medium-priced facilities and 49,000 boarding houses, operating, in all, about 1,250,000 beds.
The main problem today concerns good class hotels. These suffered very much since the war from two causes: the first, during the period of restrictions, and the second due to a decline in the home market because of the reduced spending power of the middle classes. It is true to say that every resort has lost at least one large good class hotel, and throughout the country in general it has been estimated that 10 per cent. of all good licensed accommodation has been lost. In London, although some rehabilitation has taken place, only one brand new hotel has been built since the war. If our tourist trade is to continue to expand at least 5,000 more hotel rooms of good standing will be needed in the main tourist centres within the next two years.
The value of the tourist industry is worthy of note. In 1937, which was the best pre-war period, 500,000 tourists visited this country. In 1953, 820,000 visited this country and this year rather more are expected. They spent in 1953 £126m. and, of this, £36m. came from United States and Canadian visitors


alone. I suggest that we should compare this with the £32m. of total receipts from those countries of the dollar area from whisky and cars. The hotel industry provides one of the best dollar exports.
Compare our hotel accommodation with that of Western Europe. In almost every European country since the war a number of good class hotels have been built through the help of the State, or through funds available through Marshall Aid. In Austria, several millions of pounds have been set aside during the period of Marshall aid. In Denmark, by Act of Parliament, low rates of interest have been charged on loans, and in Italy, Norway, Sweden, Western Germany and Ireland loan facilities have been offered and grants made to hoteliers to build or improve hotels. My purpose is not to ask for any subsidies for this industry but that the matter should receive some very active consideration by the Departments concerned, in order that our hotel people' can meet the competition from Europe on equal terms.
The main problem of this industry is the unfavourable treatment which it has received at the hands of Whitehall since the war. I wish to cite two complaints. The first is that the industry pays Purchase Tax on what it calls its tools for the trade, its equipment, whereas manufacturing industries do not. Secondly, the hotel is treated as a domestic establishment from the point of view of taxation, depreciation and rates, and does not enjoy the reliefs from taxation which are granted to other industries.
Hotels and inns should be allowed to charge to revenue the cost of improvements made within the four walls without attracting the penalty of 10s. in the £ taxation. Some of the public rooms in our hotels are extremely dreary places, especially those in our industrial towns. I submit that hotels in this country should be the shop window and showroom for displaying our finest products of furniture, glass, china and carpets.
It is clear to countries in Europe which have had a long experience of this business that some State assistance is necessary if hotels are to maintain a service to overseas visitors. I think that a well thought out system of financial aid by way of low interest loans would profit

the hotel industry, and, incidentally, the country, enormously.
While the tourist industry of visitors from overseas is expanding, the home trade is seriously contracting. It is an interesting social fact that only 50 per cent. of the people of this country are taking their holidays away from home. They cannot afford the high cost of a holiday elsewhere. This increase in cost during the last few years is not entirely due to the increased cost of running hotels and boarding-houses, but is chiefly due to the concentration of holiday business in a very short period, and, at the same time, to the very high cost of travel.
The Minister could do a great deal in both cases. Dealing, first, with the need to extend the holiday season, it is obvious that no industry can hope to run on economic lines if it has to recoup its wages bill and overheads for six months within, say, eight weeks. Both hotels and resorts have made very strenuous efforts to extend their peak periods both before July and after August by offering lower terms during those periods and by offering holidays for old people at special rates. But the numbers are still quite inadequate.
Large-scale changes in holiday habits are certainly required. Exhortation is not enough. In Toronto, the Bell Telephone Company give an incentive to their employees to stagger their holidays. Those who do this receive an extra week's holiday. I think that there is an opportunity for the Board of Trade and other Departments of Whitehall to give a lead. Something could be done, possibly with the co-operation of the trade unions and industry generally, to make this gesture to increase the holiday period.
What is certainly a step in the wrong direction is one taken by the Admiralty recently in announcing that it will close down its dockyards during the peak summer period. As the Minister will know, that encourages other industries in the locality who are supplying ancillary articles to the dockyards to do the same, and this accentuates the trouble rather than assists in curing it.
The second factor is the high cost of travelling. We need cheap fare facilities. We might with benefit emulate the custom of some European countries by introducing family travelling arrangements. I


must emphasise that holidays away from home will not be possible for the remaining 50 per cent. of holidaymakers unless and until the holiday season is extended.
Certain other things are worrying the hotel industry. The Catering Wages Act is very much to the fore with anyone running such an establishment. I am quite well aware—but I do not think many members of the industry are—that the whole purpose of the Act is to take away from the Ministry the power to intervene in wage awards. Nevertheless, many of us feel that the present system is too general in character and that we need more regional and local boards.
There is much disturbance in the industry about the proposed Food and Drugs Amendment Bill. Nobody in the industry seeks to oppose the suggestions regarding purity and cleanliness in the preparation, presentation and marketing of food. Those in the industry welcome any measure to ensure to the public clean food. What they object to are the complexities introduced by the Bill and the fact that it is not really needed at the present time.
I think I have covered most of the points which are disturbing the industry and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy us that he is fully alive to the potential importance of the matters raised and can make some constructive suggestions towards meeting them.

1.7 a.m.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: I do not want to keep my hon. Friend from the Minister for more than a minute, but I do wish to endorse what he has said about the importance of this tourist and travel industry. I, too, feel that our hotels, in their general presentation to the public, leave very much to be desired. I recommend to the Minister the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, of some form of Government assistance by way of loans to hotels. By that I do not mean that there should be a subsidy, but I do think that it would be money well invested.
There is no doubt that the more foreign visitors we can attract to this country the more invisible exports we shall enjoy. I should like to see the numbers of foreign visitors greatly increased. I am quite sure that we can offer to holidaymakers

from abroad attractions just as great as foreign countries offer to our own people. I think my hon. Friend is pleading in a very good cause and I hope the Minister will be able to meet the points he has made.

1.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) has raised a wide subject and I should like to say at once that I appreciate the terms in which he has done so. I should like also to say straight away that I agree entirely with him as to the importance of the tourist industry to our national economy.
The figures for overseas tourists are significant, and are as roughly quoted by him. Of the 819,000 for 1953, it is interesting that 251,000 represent visitors from the dollar area. Also, figures he quoted for the foreign currency earnings are, I think, correct, and include the cost of transport across the sea. Those are considerable figures, but I, too, believe that there is scope for further considerable growth.
It is clear that our present hotel accommodation is inadequate, and the British Travel and Holidays Association have estimated that within five years we might have an increase of about 200,000 in the number of visitors; but that would be conditional, as my hon. Friend said, on about 5,000 additional beds being made available, and half of those, they think, are required in London. While mentioning the Association, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work that body does, under the energetic chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell.
Perhaps I may mention the scale of support which the Government are giving to that body. Last year the Government grant, largely for overseas publicity, amounted to £720,000—a very considerable sum. I think there is one cause for concern to us, and that is the very limited support indeed that is given to that body by the hotel industry. I think the total subscriptions coming from the hotel industry to the British Travel and Holidays Association are not more than £5,000 to £6,000, and when that is compared with the scale of Government support, the disparity is rather large. I would like to appeal to the hotel industry to back up the good work the Association


are doing. It is important for the hotel industry to know that it is estimated that overseas tourists spend about 9s. in the £ of what they spend over here on hotels and catering.
I would now refer to what my hon. Friend said when he compared the amount of assistance that her Majesty's Government gives to the industry with the amount of assistance given by some foreign Governments to their hotel and catering industry. I know that my hon. Friend is conscious of the disadvantage of Government subsidies, but he will see that the kind of assistance for which he is asking really amounts to something of the same kind.
With our very complicated national economy that would be a most dangerous course for us to embark upon. We have many industries of first-rate national importance, and when one starts providing direct assistance like that, on what principle does one estimate the relative importance of the industries, and where does one stop? We are always having impressed on us how important it is to reduce Government expenditure, thereby reducing taxation, and we entirely agree. Such an object is quite incompatible with the adoption of direct Government assistance to industries, however important they are.
There is one point I should like to make on building licences, because here I believe the situation has improved enormously in the last two years. The hotel industry was undoubtedly handicapped a year or two ago, but individual building licences are now no longer a problem. If either of my hon. Friends knows of any case where hotels have building projects held up for lack of building licences, I should be glad to hear of it.
Reference has been made to taxation, and here I would say that the industry feels that there are concessions due to be made to it. The British Hotels and Restaurants Association have submitted a memorandum to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Royal Commission on Taxation on this matter, and have pressed for Purchase Tax and other concessions. I have not the time to deal with this aspect tonight and, in any case, that is a matter for the Chancellor; but I would remind the House that there was a scheme a few

years ago for the remission of Purchase Tax on equipment for hotels in connection with the Festival of Britain, but that that scheme was not very successful in operation.
One of the main difficulties, it was discovered, was that the kind of things which hotels might need and buy were, in a large range, the same as those required in ordinary homes; and that made administration very complicated. I think that the investment allowances introduced in this year's Budget must be of definite, although perhaps limited, help because they apply, I understand, to machinery and plant installed by hotels. The representations which the industry has made to the Chancellor and to the Royal Commission will be considered very carefully indeed; that assurance I can give.
Then there was reference to the extension of the holiday season, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very anxious indeed to encourage a wider "spread" than exists at present for the holiday season. The British Travel and Holidays Association have conducted each year a campaign with that object in view, but the tradition for taking holidays in July and August seems one which is not easily changed. While the Government do what is possible to encourage people to spread holidays more widely, I believe that it would be wrong to compel them to do so.
My hon. Friend suggested an extra week's holiday for civil servants and that, no doubt, will be an extremely popular suggestion in some quarters; and I have no doubt that the Chancellor will note the suggestion. One could hope that it would be applied to hon. Members of this House, who would like holidays spread a little more, particularly during June and July. Reference was also made to the decision of the Admiralty to close dockyards for two weeks. That, I understand, is a reversion to pre-war practice and has been prompted by considerations of economy and efficiency.
Cheap travel facilities were mentioned, but I cannot fully accept at all the implication that the cost of travel in the United Kingdom is appallingly high. If it is related to pre-war figures, or to other countries, I would say that it most certainly could not be called appallingly high: but it is not a matter with which


I could deal this evening. The question of family cheap tickets is a matter for the British Transport Commission which must, of course, be guided by commercial considerations. But the Commission are all the time weighing up what can be done in that direction.
I hope that what I have said indicates that the Government have the interests of this most important industry very much in mind and that we are, by our economic policy, and by the substantial contribution to the British Holidays and Travel Association, showing in a practical way our anxieties to help the industry to meet the requirements of our overseas visitors, for their benefit, and for the benefit of our national economy.

1.20 a.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the fact that these conditions apply equally to Scotland, if not more so, and that this is an

all-encompassing matter of the whole of the United Kingdom? The Scottish Tourist Board are just as interested as the British Holidays and Travel Association and they work together under the able leadership of Mr. Tom Johnston.

Mr. Amory: I gladly give that assurance. From the point of view of overseas tourists I do not know how we would get on without the contribution from Scotland. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it attracts a very high proportion indeed of overseas visitors, and rightly so. I should like to make it clear that I have been speaking for the whole of the United Kingdom; and what I have said about Scotland goes for Wales, for there is a tourist board there, also.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past One o'Clock.